Puckdeesri v. Lopez ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10594
Summary Calendar
UDOM PUCKDEESRI, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARCUS LOPEZ, Correctional Officer III; STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CV-31
--------------------
Before SMITH, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Udom Puckdeesri, Sr., Texas prisoner #732749, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42
U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. His complaint alleged that the
defendants had illegally confiscated and destroyed legal papers
and court records in retaliation for complaining about a
correctional officer. His only requested relief was $5,000 per
day for mental suffering.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10594
-2-
Puckdeesri reiterates on appeal that he was retaliated
against when he was illegally deprived of his legal documents and
trial court transcripts, which, he argues, impeded his access to
the court and the grievance system and violated his
constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The
district court determined that, even assuming that Puckdeesri’s
property was wrongfully confiscated, Puckdeesri had failed to
allege any physical injury to support his request for $5,000 per
day for mental suffering as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). We
affirm the district court on the alternative ground that
Puckdeesri failed to establish causation, which is required for a
retaliation claim. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30
(5th Cir. 1992).
Because Puckdeesri has not shown that his property was not
seized and destroyed for the legitimate reasons given in the
confiscated property form, i.e., that the property was improperly
stored in excessive amounts and because the property had to be
given to a visitor within 60 days or it would be destroyed,
Puckdeesri cannot show that, but for the alleged retaliatory
motive, his property would not have been seized and destroyed.
See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998).
Therefore, his retaliation claim must fail. See id.In his brief, Puckdeesri requests that he be allowed to
proceed IFP on appeal. His request is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.