Donald Smith v. Collin County Jail

Case: 12-41326 Document: 00512457310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 2, 2013
No. 12-41326
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DONALD SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
COLLIN COUNTY JAIL; TERRY BOX, Sheriff; NFN FRIZELL, Lieutenant;
COLLIN COUNTY TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-801
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Smith, Texas prisoner # 669727, appeals the summary judgment
dismissal of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Collin
County Texas, Sheriff Box, and Lt. Frizell.1 Smith alleges that, while he was
confined at Collin County Jail on a bench warrant from October 4, 2011, to
January 12, 2012, his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
Collin County Jail was previously dismissed from this action.
Case: 12-41326 Document: 00512457310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2013
No. 12-41326
because he was denied use of the jail’s law library. According to Smith, this
denial of access prevented him from researching and preparing a state habeas
application regarding his Dallas County conviction.
A district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
Berquist v. Washington Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2007). Pretrial
detainees have a right of access to the courts. See Walker v. Navarro Cnty. Jail,
4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Lack of access to legal materials may constitute
an unconstitutional infringement on a prisoner’s right of access to the courts.
See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). To prevail on an
access-to-the-courts claim, a prisoner must show an actual injury. Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). Such an injury is shown when the prisoner
demonstrates that the policies or actions of prison officials have hindered his
ability to file a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.
403, 414-22 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 356.
Smith’s allegations do not set forth an actual injury for purposes of a
denial-of-access-to-courts claim. Smith did not show that his state habeas
application would contain a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim. See Christopher,
536 U.S. at 415-16. Smith has not demonstrated an actual injury sufficient to
establish a constitutional violation of his right of access to the courts. Lewis, 518
U.S. at 351, 356.
Accordingly, the district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
2