Sias v. State of Louisiana , 146 F. App'x 719 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30353
Conference Calendar
TERENCE SIAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA; PERKINS, Captain;
C. PAUL PHELPS CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Anger Management Counsel & Correctional Staff,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CV-355
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terence Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 127791, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of his
pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint. Sias’s complaint
alleged that he was denied the constitutional right of access to
the courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30353
-2-
Sias does not provide a clear assertion that indicates the
manner in which the defendants allegedly denied his right of
access to the courts. He also does not present a coherent
argument showing that he has been prejudiced in his ability to
prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court. He
therefore has failed to establish that he has suffered a
constitutional deprivation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
351-54 (1996); Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.
1998). Sias’s allegations are vague and conclusory and are
therefore insufficient to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
See Arnaud v. Odom, 870 F.2d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1989).
Sias also seeks an injunction and raises claims relating to
disciplinary reports, retaliation, and the deprivation of good
time credits. This court will not consider these claims because
they were not presented to the district court. See Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). To the
extent that Sias seeks injunctive relief regarding his claim of
denial of access to the courts, he fails to establish that such
relief is warranted. See FED. R. APP. P. 8.
Sias’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Sias’s
complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as
a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this
appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.
No. 04-30353
-3-
1996). This court cautions Sias that if he accumulates three
strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.