Corthron v. Riley ( 1996 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-40841
Summary Calendar
_______________________
CASEY DEAN CORTHRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STEVE RILEY, Detective,
McKinney Police Department;
COLLIN COUNTY, TX,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94-CV-223
_________________________________________________________________
June 12 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Casey Dean Corthron appeals the district court’s
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of his civil rights action.
Corthron contends that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing with prejudice his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claims
related to the prosecution of his criminal case and by dismissing
*
Pursuant to Local 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
his other denial-of-access claims on statute of limitations
grounds. He also contends that he was denied appointed counsel and
that the district court should not have dismissed his claim for
confiscation of his wallet. Corthron asserts, for the first time
on appeal, that he was not allowed to appear in court.
Corthron’s denial-of-access-to-the-court claims related
to the improper prosecution of his criminal case were properly
dismissed by the district court because his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause
of action does not accrue until his conviction has been
invalidated. Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir.
1994). Further as he had court-appointed counsel at the time, this
satisfied his right of access to the courts to defend himself.
DeGrate v. Godwin, #95-30983 (5th Cir. 1996), citing United States
v. Chatman, 584 F.2d 1358, 1360 (4th Cir. 1978) (obligation to
provide access to the courts was satisfied by offering defendant
the assistance of counsel).
This court may affirm, on other grounds, the district
court’s dismissal of Corthron’s other denial-of-access claims. See
Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th
Cir. 1981). After being given several opportunities to expand upon
them, Corthron still alleges only conclusional denial-of-access
allegations that do not sufficiently demonstrate legal prejudice.
See Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992) (denial-of-access claim requires
showing of legal prejudice); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789,
2
793 (5th Cir. 1986) (even pro se plaintiff must plead specific
facts to support his conclusions). Texas’s tort of conversion
provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the alleged
confiscation of a prisoner’s property. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d
541, 53 (5th Cir. 1994). Corthron’s claim that he was unable to
appear in court does not allege a clear or obvious error that
affects his substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
1266 (1995).
Corthron has had one prior appeal to this court dismissed
as frivolous. See Corthron v. Liles, #95-20268 )Oct. 17, 1995)
(unpublished). He is now warned that any further frivolous appeals
or other pleadings to this court will incur sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
3