Johnson v. Alford ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-40746
    Summary Calendar
    GLENDALE JOHNSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JIMMIE E. ALFORD, ET AL.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    (6:93-CV-594)
    April 11, 1996
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Glendale Johnson sued various Texas prison officials, alleging
    they violated his constitutional rights by denying him hot meals as
    punishment for refusing to shave while on lockdown status.           The
    district court disagreed and dismissed his civil rights complaint
    as frivolous.   Johnson appeals.    We affirm.
    I.
    The district court found that Johnson deliberately refused to
    shave in violation of prison rules; that, as a result, prison
    *
    Pursuant to Local Rule 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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
    officials did not permit Johnson to go to the prison chow hall;
    that on such occasions, Johnson received cold meals known as
    "Johnnie sacks" in his cell; and that at no time was Johnson ever
    denied a meal.    Johnson does not contest any of these findings as
    clearly erroneous.
    Johnson has failed to show how the denial of hot meals as part
    of the prison officials' effort to maintain prison order and
    security constitutes an "atypical and significant hardship on the
    inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."
    Sandin v. Conner, 
    115 S. Ct. 2293
    , 2300 (1995).      Johnson's reliance
    on prison directives suggesting inmates in lockdown will receive
    hot meals is unavailing.      
    Id. Johnson's other
    claims of error are also meritless.            The
    district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a
    default judgment for Johnson when the defendants were less than two
    months late in filing their answer and Johnson failed to show
    prejudice arising from that delay.      Mason v. Lister, 
    562 F.2d 343
    ,
    345 (5th Cir.     1977).      Nor did the district court abuse its
    discretion in refusing to enter a default judgment against those
    defendants who failed to attend the Flowers hearing.       See Wells v.
    Rushing, 
    755 F.2d 376
    , 380 n.5 (5th Cir. 1985).
    Johnson was not entitled to the appointment of counsel in this
    § 1983 suit.     Ulmer v. Chancellor, 
    691 F.2d 209
    , 212-13 (5th Cir.
    1982)   (requiring    party    to   demonstrate   that   case   presents
    "exceptional circumstances" warranting appointment of counsel).
    Johnson did not explain how the district court's failure to notify
    2
    him that he was required to submit a witness list prior to the
    Flowers hearing constituted an abuse of its discretion.   Finally,
    the district court did not deny Johnson the right to a jury trial
    since he did not demand a jury trial in his amended complaint nor
    did he object at the Flowers hearing to its absence.
    AFFIRMED.
    3