Cinnamon v. Scott ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 00-10127
Summary Calendar
_________________
BILLY RAY CINNAMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division; CAROLE KEATON RYLANDER,
Comptroller of Public Accounts,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(5:99-CV-238-C)
_________________________________________________________________
July 24, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by Billy Ray Cinnamon
(Texas prisoner #615926) claims a violation of the Takings Clause
of the Fifth Amendment because he is not paid interest accruing on
his inmate trust account. He appeals the dismissal of his action
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
as frivolous. We review for abuse of discretion. E.g., Berry v.
Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999).
We find such an abuse, because the evidentiary bases for the
district court’s opinion—that the funds in Cinnamon’s account do
not generate interest and that his account is voluntary—do not
support finding the suit frivolous. The statement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Offender Orientation Handbook that
the trust fund does not pay interest is beside the point, for it
does not address whether such accounts earn interest.
Nor are we persuaded by the Texas Attorney General’s Opinion,
because it antedates the passage of a Texas statute requiring that
the assets held in such inmate accounts be deposited either in the
general revenue fund of the state treasury, in trust with the
comptroller, or in a local bank account on approval by the
comptroller. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 493.0082 (West 1998).
Further discovery is necessary to ascertain whether the funds earn
interest.
Finally, Cinnamon has presented a viable claim as to whether
the option to use an outside account renders any loss of a property
interest a voluntary one. He claims he is not allowed to use funds
in an outside account for any prison purpose. Depending on the
expected length of his incarceration and his ability to transfer
funds from an outside account, opening such an account might not be
a genuine alternative.
- 2 -
Because we conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the instant suit as factually groundless,
it is not necessary to reach Cinnamon’s contention that the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A unconstitutionally
restrict his access to federal courts. In any event, it is
meritless. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 n.2 (5th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 119 S. Ct. 2405 (1999).
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
- 3 -