Handley v. Cockrell, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
August 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40382
Conference Calendar
JOHN HANDLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANIE M. COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division; JASON T. HEATON, Warden;
RONALD C. FOX, Major,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:02-CV-589
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Handley, Texas prisoner # 582374, appeals the
magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). Handley argues that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to his safety in that they refused to
place him in protective custody despite threats that were made
against him because he is an ex-police officer. The record

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-40382
-2-
indicates that prison officials did not ignore or act with
deliberate indifference to Handley’s complaints. They conducted
several life endangerment studies, but investigations did not
corroborate Handley’s allegations. They also placed him in
safe-keeping, which minimized his contact with inmates in the
prison’s general population. Therefore, the magistrate judge did
not err in dismissing Handley’s claim as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim. See Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397,
400-02 (5th Cir. 1995).
Handley’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore,
is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; see also Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of
this appeal as frivolous and the magistrate judge’s dismissal of
Handley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim each count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996). Handley is cautioned that if he accumulates three
strikes, he may not 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --