IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40441
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES HENRY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIDENTIFIED QUARTERMAN, Warden;
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; BILL LAYTON,
Administrator; Steven G. KASPARIAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-865
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Henry Johnson appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit in which he alleged that prison officials failed to
protect him from attacks by other inmates and failed to provide
adequate medical care. An in forma pauperis complaint may be
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40441
-2-
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has
no arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d
114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court reviews a § 1915(d)
dismissal under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.
To establish a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth
Amendment a prisoner must show that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to his need for protection. Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991). A prison official acts with
deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment "only if he
knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and
[he] disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures
to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994).
Johnson did not allege any facts tending to show that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety. On the
contrary, after being warned by an inmate of a possible attack on
Johnson, the officer escorting Johnson from his cell brought a
shield for their protection. Although the officer was unable to
prevent the August 23, 1994, attack, he responded by trying to
protect Johnson. Nor do Johnson's allegations that he has been
attacked by other inmates after that date indicate deliberate
indifference on the part of prison officials.
As to his denial-of-medical care claim, Johnson fails to
raise this issue in his brief on appeal. Although this court
liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972), this court requires arguments to be briefed in
order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
No. 95-40441
-3-
Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the
brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. at 224-25.
Johnson's brief is wholly without merit, rendering the
appeal frivolous. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th
Cir. 1988). This appeal is dismissed as such. See 5th Cir.
Rule 42.2.
This court, in two prior cases, expressly warned Johnson of
the possibility of sanctions if he continued to file frivolous
appeals. Because Johnson failed to withdraw this appeal despite
being twice warned, this court chooses to exercise its
"discretionary power" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), to render
judgment for costs at the end of the action. See Moore v.
McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the
costs of this appeal, $105, are taxed against Johnson. No new
filings by or on behalf of Johnson will be accepted by the Clerk
of Court without the express written consent of a judge of this
court.
Johnson's "motion for amended brief" is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.