Alex v. Stalder, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30326
Conference Calendar
RICKY JOSEPH ALEX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER; MICHAEL LONNIE VENETIA;
LOUIS CHRISTIAN; LONNIE NAIL,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2120
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky Joseph Alex, Louisiana prisoner # 98130, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
lawsuit against various employees of the Wade Correctional
Center. He asserts that the district court abused its discretion
in determining that the defendants had not been deliberately
indifferent to his safety. Alex’s claim that a snake had entered
his cell without biting him and that prison officials had killed

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30326
-2-
the snake does not establish that the defendants deprived him “of
the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See Palmer
v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999)(citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Alex is not entitled to
damages for emotional distress because he did not allege a prior
physical injury. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193-94
(5th Cir. 1997). Alex’s assertions that he has been bitten by
ants and spiders, for which he admitted that he received medical
treatment, do not establish deliberate indifference. See id.
Alex has not made a claim establishing that the defendants failed
to protect him from future harm because he has not established
that such future injury is “sure or very likely.” See Helling v.
McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
Alex has not established that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous.
See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. Consequently, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --