Ganesan vs. James, (5th Cir. 2004)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 19, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-11187 Summary Calendar APPARAJAN GANESAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY JAMES, Administrative Tech II; MICHAEL UPSHAW, Warden; JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:02-CV-129 Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Apparajan Ganesan, Texas prisoner # 904088, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action and the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. The district court dismissed, as frivolous, GanesanÂ’s claims against Warden Michael Upshaw (Upshaw) and Janie Cockrell (Cockrell) and certain claims against Shirley James (James), after finding that Ganesan had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. The district court also found that Ganesan made misrepresentations calculated to mislead the court and issued an order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. After Ganesan failed to respond to the show cause order, the district court dismissed the remainder of GanesanÂ’s claims, issued a monetary sanction of $100, and barred Ganesan from making any subsequent filings until the sanction was satisfied or judicial approval was previously obtained.
On appeal, Ganesan does not provide any legal arguments or authority challenging the district court§ 1983 claim. Siglar v. Hightower ,
As for GanesanÂ’s claim that James retaliated against him and denied him access to the courts by JamesÂ’ refusal to deliver GanesanÂ’s mail to him and JamesÂ’ denial of a protective escort for Ganesan to the mailroom to pick up his mail, Ganesan must show that he has been denied a specific constitutional right.
See Tighe v. Wall , 100 F.3d 41, 43 (5th Cir. 1996). A review of the record reveals that Ganesan refused to pick up his mail from the mailroom. There is no evidence that the mailroom failed to inform Ganesan that he had mail in the mailroom or that the mailroom refused to give Ganesan his mail when he came to the mailroom. Therefore, because Ganesan did not make the necessary showing of a violation of a constitutional right, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing, as frivolous, Ganesan§ 1983 claim.).
The district court§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Ganesan is cautioned that if he accumulates three § 1915(g). AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
No. 03-11187
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Raymond Louis Bender, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. Brumley, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 1 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1993)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Valentino B. Adepegba, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy G. Hammons, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Special Agent Assigned To F C I Oakdale; John L. Nixon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting Supervisory Special Agent At F C I Oakdale, Defendants-Appellees., 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Thomas Tighe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard A. Wall, Warden; John Mcgovern; Capt. Bordelon, Defendants-Appellees.
See other documents that cite the same legislation
