United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41149
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL O. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
POLUNSKY UNIT FIELD; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
MEDICAL BRANCH, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:04-CV-179
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael O. Coleman, Texas prisoner # 498392, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for
failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). He argues that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they assigned him
to work in the fields despite their knowledge that he has insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus and very erratic blood glucose levels
and that in July 2004, he blacked out while working in the fields
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-41149
-2-
due to a blood glucose level of 23. Coleman has not shown that
the district court erred in holding that, even if his allegations
are accepted as true, he is not entitled to relief because his work
assignment was consistent with his medical restrictions. See
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989). Coleman’s
disagreement with his medical classification does not state a
constitutional claim. See Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th
Cir. 1992). Coleman has not shown that the district court abused
its discretion in dismissing his complaint without giving him an
opportunity to amend it. See Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542
(5th Cir. 1993).
Coleman argues for the first time on appeal that his work
assignment was made in “retaliation on another issue that [he]
cannot prove.” Coleman may not raise a new legal theory for the
first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183
F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
The district court’s dismissal of Coleman’s complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1)
counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Coleman is cautioned
that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not
be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g).
No. 05-41149
-3-
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.