Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40144 Conference Calendar _ MARK ANDREW CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RON SCOTT, Administrative Warden, Bowie County Correctional Center; CAROL DOLBE, Assistant District Attorney, Bowie County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:95-CV-193 - - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVID
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40144 Conference Calendar _ MARK ANDREW CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RON SCOTT, Administrative Warden, Bowie County Correctional Center; CAROL DOLBE, Assistant District Attorney, Bowie County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:95-CV-193 - - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDE..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-40144
Conference Calendar
__________________
MARK ANDREW CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RON SCOTT, Administrative Warden,
Bowie County Correctional Center;
CAROL DOLBE, Assistant District
Attorney, Bowie County, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:95-CV-193
- - - - - - - - - -
June 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Andrew Christensen, #85649, a Colorado state prisoner
incarcerated in Texas, appeals from the district court's
dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(d). Christensen argues that he was denied
access to the courts because Dolbe removed a disk containing
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40144
-2-
Colorado statutes from the prison law library, that the prison
law library is inadequate, that no other method of legal support
is available to the inmates, that the prison does not have a
system for Colorado inmates to make legal telephone calls to
their attorneys, that since filing his complaint he has been
transferred to a facility with no law library, and that he is
denied the rights and privileges available to other Colorado
inmates incarcerated in the State of Colorado. Because
Christensen failed to allege the element of legal prejudice
necessary to set forth a cognizable access-to-the-courts claim,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
this claim as frivolous. See Eason v. Thaler,
73 F.3d 1322, 1328
(5th Cir. 1996). Neither has Christensen alleged purposeful or
intentional discrimination with regard to the transfer of
Colorado inmates to Texas prison facilities. See Muhammad v.
Lynaugh,
966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th Cir. 1992). He has thus failed
to set forth a cognizable equal protection claim. Accordingly,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.