Lucas vs. Del Toro, (5th Cir. 1997)
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50454 Summary Calendar MICHAEL H. LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GABRIEL DEL TORO, Warden, CAROL TAYLOR, Comptroller; DOVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-95-CV-51 July 15, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael H. Luca s, Missouri prisoner #161077, filed a civil rights co mplaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dove Development Corporation and several of its employees as the operators of the Crystal City Detention Center in Crystal City, Texas. Lucas argues that the district court erred in dismissing his allegations of denial of his right of access to the courts.
Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. B ounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). A prisoner must show actual injury to prevail on an access-to-the-courts claim. L ewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2179-80 (1996). “While the precise contours of a prisoner’s right of access to the courts remain somewhat o bscure, the Supreme Court has not extended this right to encompass more than the ability of an inmate to prepare a nd transmit a necessary legal document to a court.” B rew er v. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993)(footnote omitted).
Lucas did not allege in the district court nor has he argued on appeal that his legal positions in any of his cases filed prior to this case were prejudiced as a result of his limited access to the law library or his loss of the computer files. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing LucasÂ’s complaint as frivolous. E ason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994); Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Lucas has failed to rai se an issue of arguable merit on appeal, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. S ee Howard v .
King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Lucas is warned that any additional frivolous appeals filed will invite the imposition of san ctions. Lucas is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous in order to avoid sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Danny R. Graves, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Jack Hampton, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. Ronald Harlan Edmonds, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Fitzpatrick, Warden, Fci Big Spring, Texas, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. Chris Lopez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Branch T. Coe, M.D., Hale County Jail Physician, Defendant-Appellee., 1 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1993)
- US Code - Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare - 42 USC 1983 - Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
- U.S. Supreme Court - Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Van Lee Brewer, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Van Lee Brewer and Claude Harris, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. B. Wilkinson, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Clinton C. Howard, Jr., and Michael Chapman and Kenneth Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John T. King, Secretary, Department of Corrections, and Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Defendants-Appellees., 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
