Mills v. LeBlanc ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30589 Document: 00516429321 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2022
No. 21-30589
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Logan Mills,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
James LeBlanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections;
Robert Tanner; Ernestine Smith; Lisa Jenkins; Cynthia
Crain,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:21-CV-418
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Logan Mills, Louisiana
prisoner # 532042, appeals: the dismissal of his complaint brought under 42
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30589 Document: 00516429321 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 21-30589
U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction; and the
denial of his motion for a transcript, at Government expense, of the hearing
conducted pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985),
overruled on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Mills’
claims under § 1983 stemmed from the confiscation of certain items shipped
to him through the mail, including photographs, picture catalogues, a novel,
and magazines. (He concedes he eventually received 42 photographs that
were initially confiscated.)
Where, as here, the district court dismissed a complaint as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b)(1), review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th
Cir. 2005). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact”. Id.Inmates have a First Amendment right to be free from mail censorship
not “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”. Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987). Four basic factors are relevant to deciding if the
challenged censorship regulation is reasonable. See id. at 89–91. First, there
must be a sufficiently rational and non-arbitrary connection between the
regulation and the prison’s legitimate interest. Id. at 89–90. Other factors
are: whether the inmate has alternative means of exercising the
constitutional right; whether an accommodation of the inmate would
adversely affect others and “the allocation of prison resources”; and
“whether there are ready alternatives that could fully accommodate the
prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests”. Samford
v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Absent
evidence the prison official’s acts are an exaggerated response in the light of
valid policy considerations, “[a] court[] should ordinarily defer to [the]
expert judgment” of the official. Turner, 482 U.S. at 86.
2
Case: 21-30589 Document: 00516429321 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 21-30589
Security, order, and inmate rehabilitation are, of course, legitimate
penological interests. See Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir.
1984). Our court has upheld policies restricting materials that could
compromise the safety of inmate population and rehabilitation interests. See
Thompson v. Patteson, 985 F.2d 202, 205–206 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding officials
could limit access to sexually-explicit materials, even ones that are not
obscene, because prisons have legitimate interest in preventing “deviate,
criminal sexual behavior”). Given these interests and weighing the pertinent
factors, the district court was correct in dismissing Mills’ complaint.
To the extent Mills challenges the adequacy of the prison-grievance
procedure, his complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and was properly
dismissed. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373.
Next, Mills contends the district court erred in denying his motion for
preliminary injunction. Denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Black Fire Fighters Ass’n of Dallas v. City of Dallas, 905
F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990). “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be
upheld where the movant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the
four criteria” necessary for relief. Id. (emphasis in original). Because Mills
only notes the first factor necessary for a preliminary injunction (the court’s
ruling Mills could not demonstrate substantial likelihood of success), the
court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.
Finally, Mills asserts the court erred in denying his motion for a
transcript of the Spears hearing at Government expense. To obtain a
transcript at Government expense, Mills must satisfy the criteria of 28
U.S.C. § 753(f) (providing United States shall pay fees for transcripts in civil
proceedings to person appearing in forma pauperis “if the trial judge or a
circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a
substantial question)”). The movant must show why the transcript is
3
Case: 21-30589 Document: 00516429321 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 21-30589
“necessary for proper disposition of his appeal”. Norton v. Dimazana, 122
F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Mills has not shown why a transcript
was necessary, the court did not err in denying his motion. See Harvey v.
Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985) (noting party seeking transcript
must show “particular need” or raise “substantial question”). (Although
Mills asserts that a transcript was necessary to show he made no concessions
concerning any applicable penological interests, we assume for purposes of
this appeal that he made no such concessions.)
The district court’s dismissal of Mills’ complaint counts as a strike
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th
Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S.
532, 534–41 (2015). Mills is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three
strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis 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. See § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED.
4