
    Brady HICKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS; Tarrant County Sheriffs Department; Deputy/Jailer Lingle, Tarrant County Sheriff; Deputy/Jailer J. Garcia, Tarrant County Sheriff; Deputy/Jailer Parker, Tarrant County Sheriff, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 06-10656
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 16, 2007.
    
      Brady Hicks, Jr., Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Neal Unit, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Brady Hicks, Jr., a Texas prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Tarrant County, the Tarrant County Sheriffs Department (“TCSD”), Tarrant County Sheriffs Deputy/Jailer Lingle, Tarrant County Sheriffs Deputy/Jailer J. Garcia, and Tar-rant County Sheriffs Deputy/Jailer Parker. Hicks contends that the court erred when it sua sponte dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim following an order requiring payment of the filing fee, before issuance of summons, without allowing him to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies and without opportunity to develop his complaint factually through either a Spears hearing or a questionnaire. This court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.1999).

Hicks argues that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by (1) failing to protect him, a pretrial detainee, from being assaulted by a fellow inmate even though he had informed them that the same inmate had previously threatened to kill him; (2) failing to train TCSD deputies on ways to protect pretrial detainees; (3) failing to follow policies on protecting restrained inmates from assaults by fellow inmates and other injuries; (4) failing to provide proper medical treatment; and (5) placing him in a restraining chair. The allegations in Hicks’s complaint, if developed further, might have stated a cognizable § 1983 claim. Therefore, dismissal without affording him an opportunity to offer a more detailed set of factual claims was premature, and further development of the allegations is required before a proper 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal may be imposed. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Hicks’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for reconsideration of the clerk’s order denying his motion to file a supplemental brief are denied. We express no view on the ultimate merits of this case.

VACATE AND REMAND; MOTIONS DENIED. 
      
       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.
     
      
      . Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).
     