Smith v. Long ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 99-11358
Summary Calendar
____________________
LARRY EUGENE SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILL LONG, District Clerk
Dallas County Texas,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:99-CV-7-P)
_________________________________________________________________
July 7, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
At issue is the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of the 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint of Larry Eugene Smith against Bill Long, in
his official capacity as District Clerk of Dallas County, Texas.
Smith alleged that: his unsuccessful attempts to purchase a
complete statement of facts from the county clerk’s office resulted
from discriminatory treatment; and without the statement of facts,
he was unable to prepare a habeas application and therefore denied
access to the courts.
A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim is
reviewed de novo. E.g., Hall v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693, 696 (5th
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Cir. 1999). The complaint is construed liberally in plaintiff’s
favor and the dismissal may be upheld only if “it appears beyond a
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief”. Id. (quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
The district court, considering Smith’s complaint and his
answers to the magistrate judge’s subsequent questionnaire, in the
light most favorable to Smith, concluded Smith did not adequately
“allege discriminatory intent or ... deliberate or intentional
conduct” that would invoke § 1983. Smith v. District Clerk of
Dallas County, No. 3:99-CV-0007-P, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Tex. 1
Nov. 1999). We agree.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -