Thompson v. Morales ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40723
Summary Calendar
ARTHUR J. THOMPSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAN MORALES, Attorney General; JOHN S. APPLEMAN; GEORGE W.
BUSH, JR.; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHN DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-770
- - - - - - - - - -
February 15, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur J. Thompson, Jr. (#539504), a state prisoner, has
appealed the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights
action as frivolous. An in forma pauperis complaint may be
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); see Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Siglar, 112
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 98-40723
-2-
F.3d at 193.
To prevail on a denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, the
claimant must show he was prejudiced by the alleged violation.
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992). The
district court concluded that Thompson had failed to show that he
had been prejudiced. Although Thompson argues that he should
have been permitted to amend his complaint to show prejudice,
Thompson has failed to state in his brief what he would have
alleged in an amended complaint.
Thompson argues that his complaint should not have been
dismissed as frivolous because there unresolved disputed issues
of material fact. Thompson does not identify those unresolved
issues.
Thompson complains that he should have been permitted to
have free use of indigent legal supplies and services. Thompson
does not argue that he was harmed because he did not have access
to such supplies and services.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint as frivolous. The appeal is frivolous
and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th
Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Thompson is cautioned that any
future frivolous appeals or pleadings filed by him or on his
behalf will invite the imposition of a sanction. Thompson should
therefore review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not
raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.