UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 95-30955
(Summary Calendar)
_______________
WAYMAN GOODLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANET RENO, K HAWKS; KEITH HALL,
Warden; CHIEF TYLER; OFFICER
BORDELON,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(94-CV-1763)
_______________________________________________
March 1, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Wayman Goodley appeals the district court's judgment
dismissing his civil rights action with prejudice. We affirm.
I
Goodley, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Oakdale, Louisiana, sustained serious injuries when a fellow inmate
allegedly threw scalding water on him and stabbed him with a hand-
made knife. The assigned prison guard was not present during the
*
Pursuant to Local 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
assault. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Goodley filed
suit, alleging that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by failing to protect him.1 Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge
recommended that Defendants' motion be granted. In accordance with
the magistrate's recommendation, the district court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing
Goodley's action with prejudice. Goodley filed a timely notice of
appeal.
II
Goodley argues that the district court erred in granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss. We review a district court's Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70
F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
appropriate if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal with
prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Guerrero v.
Hauck, 502 F.2d 579, 580 (5th Cir. 1974). Further, dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the complaint of a pro se prisoner is appropriate
only when the prisoner has been afforded adequate opportunity to
1
Although Goodley filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he
alleges civil rights violations by federal defendants. We construe such an
action as one brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.
388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26
n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
-2-
develop his case to the point where any merit it may contain
becomes apparent. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir.
1989).
Prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from
violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, ___
U.S. ___, ___, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994).
However, a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights are violated only if
(1) an inmate is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm, and (2) prison officials have a sufficiently
culpable state of mind to constitute deliberate indifference to the
inmate's health or safety. Id. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 1977. In
accordance with this standard, allegations of mere negligence are
insufficient to state a claim for violation of a prisoner's Eighth
Amendment rights. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S. Ct.
1078, 1084, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1986).
Goodley alleges that prison officials breached their duty to
protect him from his attacker. To substantiate his claim, Goodley
argues that prison officials should have known of his attacker's
alleged mental instability, and that prison officials failed to
exercise due care in conducting regular and thorough inmate cell
searches. Goodley's allegations sound only in negligence, and thus
fail to allege that prison officials were acting with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind to constitute deliberate
indifference to his health or safety. Because Goodley fails to
state a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, we hold
that the district court did not err in granting Defendants' Rule
-3-
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
We hold further that the district court did not err in
dismissing Goodley's complaint with prejudice. We find that
Goodley has been afforded adequate opportunity to develop his case
to the point where any merit it contains would have become
apparent.2 We also find that even if Goodley were given further
opportunity to amend his complaint, he could prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.3
III
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissing Goodley's complaint with prejudice.
2
Although Goodley has not sought leave to amend his complaint, he
supplemented his allegations in his response to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
3
Goodley also moves for appointed counsel on appeal. We are not
required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff presenting a civil rights
complaint unless the case presents exceptional circumstances. Branch v. Cole,
686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). We find that Goodley's case does not possess
the requisite exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel.
Therefore, Goodley's motion for appointed counsel is DENIED.
-4-