Simmonds v. Cockrell , 81 F. App'x 488 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                November 24, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-20294
    Summary Calendar
    GORDON RAY SIMMONDS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JANIE COCKRELL,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-02-CV-4453
    --------------------
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Gordon Ray Simmonds, Texas prisoner # 932489, appeals the
    district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary
    injunction and the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
    failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).   He argues that the
    district court erred in dismissing his complaint, in which he
    sought a preliminary injunction, instead of ruling initially on
    the preliminary injunction.   The district court determined that
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20294
    -2-
    Simmonds had not shown the likelihood of success on the merits on
    any of his claims.    See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 
    932 F.2d 1103
    , 1107
    (5th Cir. 1991).   Once the district court determined that
    Simmonds’s allegations failed to state a claim, the district
    court was required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A to dismiss the
    civil action.
    Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his due process
    rights because he does not have sufficient storage space for all
    of his property and his property which is not properly stored
    will be subject to confiscation.   Simmonds has not shown that he
    has a right protected by the Due Process Clause to possess a
    certain amount of property or to store his personal property in a
    particular manner.
    Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his right of
    access to the courts because it limits the amount of legal
    materials he can possess in his cell and restricts his ability to
    act as a writ writer for other inmates.    Simmonds has no
    constitutional right to provide legal assistance to other
    inmates.   See Shaw v. Murphy, 
    532 U.S. 223
    , 228 (2001).     Simmonds
    has not alleged or shown that his position as a litigant in a
    specific case was prejudiced in any way by the enforcement of the
    new regulation.    See Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
    , 351-54 (1996).
    Simmonds argues that the new regulation violates his right
    to free exercise of religion in that it restricts the amount of
    religious materials that he may possess and store in his cell.
    No. 03-20294
    -3-
    Simmonds acknowledged in his complaint that the new regulation
    was adopted to prevent fire and other safety hazards.    The
    district court did not err in determining that the regulation was
    reasonably related to a legitimate penological goal of preventing
    fire and other safety hazards.    See Hicks v. Garner, 
    69 F.3d 22
    ,
    25 (5th Cir. 1995).
    Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his equal
    protection rights because female prisoners are allowed extra
    storage space for personal hygiene items.    Because Simmonds has
    not shown that male and female prisoners in the Texas prisons are
    similarly situated, the district court did not err in dismissing
    his equal protection claim.    See Oliver v. Scott, 
    276 F.3d 736
    ,
    746-47 (5th Cir. 2002).
    Simmonds argues that prison officials violated the
    regulation itself because his storage unit is smaller than
    allowed by the regulation.    A violation of a prison regulation
    without more does not state a constitutional violation.     See
    Hernandez v. Estelle, 
    788 F.2d 1154
    , 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
    Accordingly, this Court AFFIRMS the district court’s
    judgment and DENIES Simmonds’s motion to strike the Attorney
    General of Texas’s brief.