Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Turner v. Wilson, 04-60640 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 04-60640 Visitors: 77
Filed: Apr. 14, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2005 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60640 Summary Calendar _ TIMOTHY TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MIKE WILSON, in his individual and personal as well as official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary; EMMITT SPARKMAN, in his individual personal and official capacities as Deputy Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Correctio
More
                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                                            F I L E D
              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   April 7, 2005
                         _______________
                                                        Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                Clerk
                           No. 04-60640
                        Summary Calendar
                         _______________



TIMOTHY TURNER,

                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MIKE WILSON, in his individual and personal as well as
official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State
Penitentiary; EMMITT SPARKMAN, in his individual personal
and official capacities as Deputy Commissioner of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections and/or former
Superintendent of Mississippi Department of Correction,
Mississippi State Penitentiary; RICKY SCOTT, in his
individual and personal and official capacities as
investigator for the Internal Audit Division and Security
Threat Group Intelligence Coordinator for the Mississippi
State Penitentiary; DONNY MULLINS; RONALD ROBINSON, in his
individual personal and former official capacities as former
investigator for the Internal Audit Division of the
Mississippi State Penitentiary; MCNEELY, Lieutenant, in his
individual personal and professional official capacities as
the former officer in charge Lieutenant of the Security
Threat Group Housing Unit; CHARLES DEER, in his individual
personal and official capacities as former Case Manager at
the Security Threat Group Unit; ALL MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY
THREAT GROUP EVALUATION TEAM,

                                   Defendants-Appellees.



                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the Northern District of Mississippi
                       No. 4:04-CV-120-DA
                      --------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      Timothy Turner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to

appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure

to state a claim.       Turner alleged that the defendants failed to

protect him from an attack by a fellow inmate.

      By moving to proceed IFP, Turner is challenging the district

court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith.

See Baugh v. Taylor, 
117 F.3d 197
, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3).           Our review of the record

indicates that Turner’s allegations state a failure-to-protect

claim under the Eighth Amendment.         See Farmer v. Brennan, 
511 U.S. 825
, 842, 838 (1994).       Whether the facts ultimately will prove a

failure-to-protect claim is not a question to be answered at this

stage of the proceedings.        See Howard v. King, 
707 F.2d 215
, 220

(5th Cir. 1983).

      Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The judg-

ment and certification decision are VACATED.           The case is REMANDED

for further proceedings.




      *
        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 circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer