Thornton v. Williams ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11226
Conference Calendar
CHARLES DEWAYNE THORNTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID W. WILLIAMS, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DAVID W. WILLIAMS, Sheriff,
Tarrant County; SCOTT WISCH, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CV-1493-A
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Dewayne Thornton, Texas inmate #0541804, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Thornton contends
that the defendants violated prison policy by opening his legal
mail outside of his presence and by delaying for five days the
return of the mail. Thornton also contends that the district
court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an
injunction against Judge Wisch.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-11226
-2-
The violation of a prison regulation that requires a
prisoner’s presence when incoming legal mail is opened and
inspected does not implicate constitutional concerns. See Brewer
v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Thornton
has not shown actual injury as a result of a delay in the return
of his legal mail, he has not demonstrated a violation of his
constitutional right of access to the court. See Ruiz v. United
States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
Federal courts are prohibited from granting an injunction to
stay state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The suppression
of evidence in a criminal proceeding would require the district
court to issue a writ of mandamus to a state judge, which would
be improper. See, e.g., Mayfield v. Klevenhagen, 941 F.2d 346,
348 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing
Thornton’s civil rights complaint. Though the district court did
not identify the specific grounds for its dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the district court’s
order shows that the dismissal was for either frivolousness or
failure to state a claim. We affirm.
The district court’s dismissal of Thornton’s complaint
counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We
caution Thornton that once he accumulates three strikes, he may
not 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
No. 00-11226
-3-
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
DENIED.