Strhan v. Scott

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 19, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-11030
Conference Calendar
LARRY GENE STRHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director; STUART D. WILLIAMS, Manager of
Clements Unit Shoe Factory; JOHN BAINES, RN, Director of
Nurses,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:01-CV-54
--------------------
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Gene Strhan, Texas state prisoner number 628985, has
appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil
rights complaint as frivolous. Strhan contends that Stuart D.
Williams, a Shoe Factory Manager at the Clements Unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
refused to provide him with safety devices or protective gear to
protect him from exposure to polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”). The
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 02-11030
-2-
record reflects that conditions in the shoe factory were
consistent with those found in private industry and did not
violate the Eighth Amendment. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d
1235, 1245 (5th Cir. 1989); see Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566,
569 (5th Cir. 1982). Strhan cannot show that Williams knowingly
exposed him to conditions creating a substantial risk of serious
harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Bowie v.
Procunier, 808 F.2d 1142, 1143 (5th Cir. 1987). Strhan contends
also that John Baines, Director of Nurses at the Clements Unit
Infirmary, had refused to provide treatment for nerve damage
which he contends was caused by exposure to PVC. Strhan has not
shown that Baines acted with deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,
302-03 (1991).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. We caution Strhan that the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous and the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous by the
district court both count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996).
APPEAL DISMISSED.