United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
H. WALKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Junior Lee Bass, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint alleging that his life is in danger because of gang
members at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution.
Doc. . The Court conducted a screening hearing on March
13, 2019. See Minute Entry (3/13/2019). The parties
consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct
all proceedings. Doc. .
alleges that in March 2017 he was attacked and beaten by 19
inmates who were gang members. The attack resulted in serious
injuries and Plaintiff's hospitalization. At the
screening hearing, Plaintiff stated that he has not been
attacked by anyone since the March 2017 incident; however, he
stated that he continues to receive threats from gang
members. Plaintiff alleges that after the attack, he
requested a transfer from Area 2 to Area 1. Eventually he was
transferred to Area 1, but he alleges he continues to receive
threats from gang members. Plaintiff requests that he be put
in protective custody or transferred to a different facility.
Other than his failure-to-protect claim, Plaintiff did not
identify any other potential constitutional claims at the
is proceeding in forma pauperis under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court “shall dismiss the case at
any time” if the action “fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted.” Furthermore, pursuant
to § 1915A(b)(1), the Court after screening a
prisoner's lawsuit against a governmental entity or
officer, shall dismiss the complaint if it “is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.”
officials have a constitutional duty to protect inmates from
violence at the hands of their fellow inmates. Longoria
v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006). However,
prison officials are not expected to prevent all
inmate-on-inmate violence. Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d
508, 512 (5th Cir. 2003). An inmate “must show that he
is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm” and that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to the inmate's safety.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). An
official acts with the requisite deliberate indifference if
he is aware of an “excessive risk to inmate . . .
safety” and disregards that risk. Id. at 837.
An officer's awareness of the risk is evaluated
subjectively. Longoria, 473 F.3d at 592-93. A prison
official knows of an excessive risk only if (1) he is aware
of facts from which he could infer that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and (2) he in fact draws the inference.
Id. at 593. No. liability exists if an official
reasonably responded to a known substantial risk, even if the
harm was ultimately not averted. Id.
Plaintiff identifies a specific attack that occurred in March
2017, he does not allege that any of the named Defendants
were aware of a specific risk of attack prior to the incident
or that they failed to take measures to prevent the risk.
Following the attack, Plaintiff requested a transfer to Area
1. Prison officials accommodated his request and moved him to
Area 1. Plaintiff admits that he has not been subject to any
attacks since the March 2017 incident. Although Plaintiff
expresses a generalized fear of gang-affiliated members, the
mere threat of violence does not by itself constitute a
failure to protect. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 858-59 (1970) (Thomas, J., concurring) (recognizing that
“[p]risons are necessarily-dangerous places, ”
which “house society's most antisocial and violent
people in close proximity with one another, ” thereby
making it inevitable that “some level of brutality ...
among prisoners” may occur); Foxx v. State of
Mississippi, No. 1:17cv61-LG-RHW, 2019 WL 2998571, at *3
(S.D.Miss. June 5, 2019). Thus, Plaintiff's allegation of
ongoing threats from other inmates fails to state a
failure-to-protect claim. The Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to allege any facts supporting a failure-to-protect
has filed a series of amended complaints and motions
requesting a transfer to a different facility or a move into
protective custody. See Doc.    
 . Inmates possess no constitutional right to be
housed in a facility of their choosing. Tighe v.
Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). Likewise, an
inmate does not have a constitutionally based liberty
interest in his custodial classification. Neals v.
Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus,
Plaintiff's requests fail to state a constitutional claim
and his motions requesting same are denied.
THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motions
   are DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice as to all claims and all Defendants