Case: 19-40922 Document: 00515815522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-40922
FILED
April 9, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
William Boyd Pierce,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bryan Collier; Carol E. Monroe; Deborah Cockrell;
Mark A. Sandlin; Office of the Attorney General,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:17-CV-632
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
William Boyd Pierce, Texas state prisoner # 1208957, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants failed to protect him
from an assault by another inmate. After Pierce had an opportunity to amend
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40922 Document: 00515815522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2021
No. 19-40922
his complaint, the district court dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Pierce now appeals that decision.
Applying de novo review, see Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209-
10 (5th Cir. 2016), we affirm. Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument,
that Pierce was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm, Pierce has not pleaded sufficient factual matter showing that
any defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. See id. at 210;
Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592-93 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Pierce
failed to state a facially plausible claim that any defendant unconstitutionally
failed to protect him from another inmate. See Legate, 822 F.3d at 209-10;
Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 763 (5th Cir. 2014). Pierce’s argument
based on alleged violations of prison regulations is unpersuasive. See
Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Williams v.
Banks, 956 F.3d 808, 812 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court’s dismissal of Pierce’s complaint for failure to state
a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762-63 (2015). Pierce is
cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed 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).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
2