Corthron v. Riley

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-40841 Summary Calendar _______________________

CASEY DEAN CORTHRON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE RILEY, Detective, McKinney Police Department; COLLIN COUNTY, TX,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-223 _________________________________________________________________

June 12 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Casey Dean Corthron appeals the district court’s

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of his civil rights action.

Corthron contends that the district court abused its discretion by

dismissing with prejudice his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claims

related to the prosecution of his criminal case and by dismissing

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. his other denial-of-access claims on statute of limitations

grounds. He also contends that he was denied appointed counsel and

that the district court should not have dismissed his claim for

confiscation of his wallet. Corthron asserts, for the first time

on appeal, that he was not allowed to appear in court.

Corthron’s denial-of-access-to-the-court claims related

to the improper prosecution of his criminal case were properly

dismissed by the district court because his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause

of action does not accrue until his conviction has been

invalidated. Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir.

1994). Further as he had court-appointed counsel at the time, this

satisfied his right of access to the courts to defend himself.

DeGrate v. Godwin, #95-30983 (5th Cir. 1996), citing United States

v. Chatman, 584 F.2d 1358, 1360 (4th Cir. 1978) (obligation to

provide access to the courts was satisfied by offering defendant

the assistance of counsel).

This court may affirm, on other grounds, the district

court’s dismissal of Corthron’s other denial-of-access claims. See

Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th

Cir. 1981). After being given several opportunities to expand upon

them, Corthron still alleges only conclusional denial-of-access

allegations that do not sufficiently demonstrate legal prejudice.

See Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992) (denial-of-access claim requires

showing of legal prejudice); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789,

2 793 (5th Cir. 1986) (even pro se plaintiff must plead specific

facts to support his conclusions). Texas’s tort of conversion

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the alleged

confiscation of a prisoner’s property. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d

541, 53 (5th Cir. 1994). Corthron’s claim that he was unable to

appear in court does not allege a clear or obvious error that

affects his substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37

F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.

1266 (1995).

Corthron has had one prior appeal to this court dismissed

as frivolous. See Corthron v. Liles, #95-20268 )Oct. 17, 1995)

(unpublished). He is now warned that any further frivolous appeals

or other pleadings to this court will incur sanctions.

AFFIRMED.