Martin v. Rodriguez-Mendoza

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50117
Summary Calendar
ROBERT LEE MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMALIA RODRIGUEZ-MENDOZA, District Clerk, Travis County,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-695
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Lee Martin, Texas prisoner # 1050629, appeals the
district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of Amalia
Rodriguez-Mendoza (Rodriguez) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. In
that suit, Martin alleged that Rodriguez violated his right of
access to the courts by failing to respond to his requests for a
copy of his statement of facts. On appeal, Martin argues in
pertinent part that his position as a litigant was prejudiced by
Rodriguez’s inaction because (1) he was entitled under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), to a free copy of his statement
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50117
-2-
of facts to file a pro se appellate brief in response to
counsel’s Anders motion and (2) Rodriguez prevented the filing of
appropriate documents when she failed to comply with his requests
for verification that his March 25, 2004, records request had
indeed been filed and, when she failed to notify him of the state
court’s September 24, 2004, ruling on that request. Our review
is de novo. See Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d 188, 191
(5th Cir. 1999).
As an initial matter, we hold that Martin’s notice of appeal
was timely filed. See United States v. Young, 966 F.2d 164, 165
(5th Cir. 1992). “[B]efore a prisoner may prevail on a claim
that his constitutional right of access to the courts was
violated, he must demonstrate ‘that his position as a litigant
was prejudiced by his denial of access to the courts.’” McDonald
v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). To
demonstrate prejudice, Martin must prove that he suffered actual
injury by showing that his ability to pursue a “nonfrivolous,”
“arguable” legal claim was hindered. See Christopher v. Harbury,
536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (internal quotations omitted). The
underlying claim must be described well enough to apply the
frivolity test and to show that its “arguable nature . . . is
more than hope.” Id. at 416 (internal quotations omitted).
Martin has failed to identify any claim, much less any
nonfrivolous claim, that he would have raised on appeal in
No. 06-50117
-3-
response to counsel’s Anders motion had he had the benefit of his
statement of facts. Similarly, he has not identified any
nonfrivolous claim that he would have raised on either state or
federal habeas review. Martin has therefore failed to show that
he suffered actual injury as a result of Rodriguez’s alleged
inaction, and, therefore, he is not entitled to relief. See id.
at 415-16.
AFFIRMED.