Sandoval v. Johns ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41276
Summary Calendar
JESUS M. SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY JOHNS, Warden, Michael Unit; LARRY G. BOTTOMS,
Captain, Michael Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:00-CV-222)
--------------------
June 29, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Jesus M. Sandoval, TDCJ prisoner # 599965,
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
prison guards had delayed or denied his access to the prison law
library. The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The district
court overruled Sandoval’s objections and dismissed the complaint
as frivolous.
We review dismissals under § 1915A de novo. See Ruiz v.
United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). Lack of access
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
to legal materials may constitute an unconstitutional infringement
of a prisoner’s right of access to the courts. See Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225,
230 (5th Cir. 1998). To prevail, however, an inmate alleging
denial of access to the courts must demonstrate “relevant actual
injury” stemming from the defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Sandoval’s general
claims that he was unable to research and understand prison
policies, or that unspecified prison grievances were dismissed,
fail to meet this standard.
In his amended complaint, Sandoval added a general claim that
prison guards had retaliated against him. To state a valid
retaliation claim under § 1983, a prisoner must allege that (1) he
invoked a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant intended
to retaliate against the prisoner for his exercise of that right,
(3) an adverse act resulted, and (4) the retaliation caused the
adverse act. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th
Cir. 1999). Although Sandoval provided details of the alleged
retaliation in his appellate brief, these facts were not alleged in
the district court. Ordinarily, we will not enlarge the record on
appeal with evidence not before the district court. See Trinity
Industries, Inc. v. Martin, 963 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1992).
Given the non-specific allegations in the record before the
district court, it properly dismissed the complaint as frivolous.
The district court’s dismissal counts as a strike for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Sandoval is warned that if he accumulates
2
three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal
while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See id.AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
3