Aragon v. Hinkle

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11192
Summary Calendar
JERRY ARAGON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THOMAS HINKLE; SANTOS GARCIA; TONY ASH;
MELISSA L. ARESKOG; LONA CHEARIS; CRAIG A. RAINES,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-36
- - - - - - - - - -
April 22, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Aragon (#376237), a state prisoner, has applied for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in an appeal from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his claims against several
defendants named in his civil rights action. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act applies to this appeal. See Strickland v.
Rankin County Correctional Facility, 105 F.3d 972, 973-76 (5th
Cir. 1997). Aragon has complied with the certification
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 96-11192
- 2 -
requirements of the PLRA and his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Aragon is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.17.
Aragon must also make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding
month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Aragon is ORDERED to
forward funds from Aragon’s account to the clerk of the district
court in payment of the initial partial filing fee. Thereafter,
funds must be forwarded each time the amount in Aragon’s account
exceeds $10, until the full filing fee of $105 is paid.
Aragon contends that the district court erred in dismissing
his claims against Thomas Hinkle, Santos Garcia, Craig Raines,
and Lona Cheairs for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have conducted a de novo review of the
record. We hold that, as to the claims against Hinkle and
Garcia, the connection between their alleged actions and a
subsequent assault upon Aragon by another inmate was too
attenuated to support the conclusion that their actions were
causally connected with the assault or that Hinkle and Garcia
exposed Aragon to a substantial risk of serious harm. See Neals
v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Aragon has failed
to allege that Raines acted with deliberate indifference to the
need to protect him from the risk of serious harm by failing to
move him to another cell after the assault. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, ___, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). Finally, Aragon
No. 96-11192
- 3 -
has failed to allege that he was prejudiced in his legal efforts
by the actions of defendant Cheairs. Henthorn v. Swinson, 955
F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992). We decline to reach several
issues pertaining to defendant Cheairs raised by Aragon for the
first time on appeal. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70
F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
IFP GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.