Christopher Curtis v. William Jones, III, et al, No. 13-11255 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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, Plaintiff-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). 2 See Rogers v.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
