Bell v. Norwood

Fifth Circuit

Bell v. Norwood

325 F. App'x 306

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2009

Docket08-10815

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 325 F. App'x 306 (Bell v. Norwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Norwood, 325 F. App'x 306 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Robert A. Bell, Texas prisoner # 755528, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for various wrongs. Bell contended that his rights were violated because he received no mail on Saturdays and because he was transported in vehicles that lacked seatbelts. He also alleged that another inmate violated his rights. The district court dismissed his suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

Bell argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his claim concerning unsafe transportation. Bell does not present argument concerning the district court’s determinations that his remaining claims were also meritless. Bell’s failure to brief these issues results in an abandonment of these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Bell’s “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bell’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is therefore GRANTED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). We dispense, however, with further briefing in this appeal, and, for the reasons given below, affirm the district court’s judgment.

Bell relies on Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 28, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), in support of his argument that the defendants breached his constitutional rights by transporting him in a vehicle that lacked seatbelts. Bell also contends that officials infringed his rights by failing to comply with Tex. Gov’t Code § 500.006(a). Bell has not shown that the defendants infringed his constitutional rights by transporting him in vehi- *308 cíes that were not equipped with seatbelts. Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997); see also Resident Council v. United States Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir.1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Robert A. Bell, Texas prisoner # 755528, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for various wrongs. Bell contended that his rights were violated because he received no mail on Saturdays and because he was transported in vehicles that lacked seatbelts. He also alleged that another inmate violated his rights. The district court dismissed his suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

Bell argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his claim concerning unsafe transportation. Bell does not present argument concerning the district court’s determinations that his remaining claims were also meritless. Bell’s failure to brief these issues results in an abandonment of these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Bell’s “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bell’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is therefore GRANTED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). We dispense, however, with further briefing in this appeal, and, for the reasons given below, affirm the district court’s judgment.

Bell relies on Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 28, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), in support of his argument that the defendants breached his constitutional rights by transporting him in a vehicle that lacked seatbelts. Bell also contends that officials infringed his rights by failing to comply with Tex. Gov’t Code § 500.006(a). Bell has not shown that the defendants infringed his constitutional rights by transporting him in vehi- *308 cíes that were not equipped with seatbelts. Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997); see also Resident Council v. United States Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir.1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F. App'x 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-norwood-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack