Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-40220 Conference Calendar DEON MEANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS; ET AL., Defendants, DAVIS, Ms.; J. LOPEZ, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-95-CV-588 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Deon Means, Texas prisoner #506828, filed a pro se,
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-40220 Conference Calendar DEON MEANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS; ET AL., Defendants, DAVIS, Ms.; J. LOPEZ, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-95-CV-588 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Deon Means, Texas prisoner #506828, filed a pro se, i..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40220
Conference Calendar
DEON MEANS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DAVIS, Ms.; J. LOPEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-95-CV-588
- - - - - - - - - -
August 25, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deon Means, Texas prisoner #506828, filed a pro se, in forma
pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against James A. Collins, in
his capacity as the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice - Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID); Julia Lopez, in her
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40220
-2-
capacity as the prison librarian; JoAnn Davis, in her capacity as
the mailroom supervisor; and Michael Morgan William, in his
capacity as an employee of the TDCJ-ID. In his original
complaint and two more definite statements, Means alleged that
(1) he was injured as a result of a bus accident and that
William, who was the driver of the bus, was negligent; (2) Lopez
and Davis denied him access to the courts by interfering with his
mail in order to prevent him from filing suit in state court
pertaining to the injuries he sustained in the bus accident;
(3) Lopez restricted his access to legal materials and inmate
assistance, which he averred was done in retaliation for his
having filed grievances against her; and (4) he notified Collins
of the obstructive behavior of Lopez and Davis and that he failed
to take any action. The district court dismissed the complaint.
Means has failed to preserve any issues for appeal related
to the claims that he raised in the district court by failing to
challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
complaint. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)(when appellant fails to
identify any error in the district court's analysis, it is the
same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment).
Means also contends in conclusional terms that he was unable
to oppose the summary-judgment motion adequately because the
district court prevented him from engaging in discovery by
entering a protective order in favor of the defendants. He avers
No. 98-40220
-3-
further that he was prevented from cross-examining Davis at the
Spears** hearing. His arguments are without merit.
Means fails to specifically identify any factual matters
which required discovery, or what information he sought, but was
unable to discover, that would have created a material factual
dispute. Moreover, the transcript from the Spears hearing shows
that Davis was present at the hearing, but that Means never
requested that he be allowed to question her or that the district
court otherwise prevented him from questioning her.
Means’ appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as one
“strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Means
that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in
any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; WARNING ISSUED.
**
Spears v. McCotter,
766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).