Harris v. Foti ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30555
Conference Calendar
__________________
DARRION HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. Sheriff,
GARY BORDELON, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. CA-95-935-T
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrion Harris filed this pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP),
42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff
Charles Foti and Warden Gary Bordelon, alleging that prison
officials did not return his radio, tapes, batteries, pencils,
and $ 25.63 in his prison account when he was transferred from
Orleans Parish Prison to another jail.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-30555
-2-
Harris also appears to be arguing for the first time on
appeal the deprivation of other property, including a pair of
eyeglasses, towels, clothing, a photo book, legal pads, and legal
work, that he says was not returned to him when he was
transferred out of Orleans Parish Prison. "Issues raised for the
first time on appeal are not reviewable by this court unless they
involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would
result in manifest injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991). Harris' issue would necessarily involve
fact questions. Therefore, this court will not consider it.
The district court dismissed a portion of Harris' complaint
because Harris had previously alleged the deprivation of his
tapes and pencils in prior suits. Harris does not challenge this
contention on appeal. Therefore, he has abandoned this issue by
failing to brief it on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The district court also dismissed the rest of Harris'
complaint regarding the taking of Harris' radio, batteries, and
money, stating Harris had alleged only a claim of deprivation of
property, which was, at most, an intentional, random act. Harris
does not claim that prison officials took Harris' property as
part of an established procedure. Therefore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Harris' action. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532-534 (1984); Marshall v.
Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.