Williams v. Smith ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41707
Summary Calendar
PAUL D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J.B. SMITH, Sheriff,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CV-88
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul D. Williams, Texas prisoner # 1149568, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Williams contends that the defendant denied him
access to the courts while he was a pretrial detainee at the
Smith County Jail.
The record reflects that counsel was initially appointed to
represent Williams in his criminal proceeding. Williams relieved
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41707
-2-
appointed counsel and he retained counsel. Insofar as Williams
may seek to challenge the guilty-plea process, he has no claim.
See Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). Insofar
as Williams asserts that he sought access to the jail’s law
library to pursue habeas relief relating to the denial of his
bond-reduction motion, we uphold the magistrate judge’s dismissal
of that claim on the alternative ground that the record reflects
that Williams suffered no prejudice from any such denial. See
Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). In
light of the extensive criminal history listed in Williams’
inmate classification record and his status as a registered sex
offender, any further attempts to have his bond lowered would
have been futile.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Williams’
complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
Williams is WARNED that if 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).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.