Christopher Curtis v. William Jones, III

Case: 13-11255 Document: 00512864633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-11255
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 10, 2014
CHRISTOPHER CURTIS,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ASSISTANT WARDEN WILLIAM H. JONES, III; MAJOR CHARLES R.
HORSLEY; SERGEANT KRISTA M. VASQUEZ; JOSE A. ARMENEDARIZ,
Correctional Officer IV; DESMOND BARRERA, Correctional Officer IV,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:12-CV-224
Before KING, JOLLY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Christopher Curtis, Texas prisoner # 1094686, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Texas Department of
Criminal Justice employees Assistant Warden Williams H. Jones, Major
Charles R. Horsley, Sergeant Krista M. Vasquez, Correctional Officer Jose A.
Armendariz, and Correctional Officer Desmond Barrera. See 28 U.S.C.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-11255 Document: 00512864633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2014
No. 13-11255
§§ 1915(3)(2), 1915A. According to Curtis, the defendants had failed to protect
him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Curtis’s allegations as to how the
defendants did so, however, have changed repeatedly. In the district court,
Curtis asserted that Vasquez orchestrated an antagonistic relationship
between him and another inmate which resulted in a fight in which Curtis was
injured. He now asserts a more generalized scheme against him by several of
the defendants, but particularly Armendariz, of which the fight was evidence
rather than the result. Curtis’s vague allegations, contradicted by other
evidence in the record and shifting as Curtis tries to evade dismissal, are
“wholly incredible” and thus frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992). The district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the
complaint as frivolous, and its judgment is AFFIRMED. See Rogers v.
Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
2