Mixon v. Henderson

Fifth Circuit

Mixon v. Henderson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1996

Docket95-20713

StatusUnpublished

This text of Mixon v. Henderson (Mixon v. Henderson) 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

Mixon v. Henderson, (5th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 95-20713 - 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20713 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM MIXON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROY H. HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-CA-90-3696 - - - - - - - - - - May 1, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE', and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Mixon appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment regarding his claim that Assistant Warden Roy H.

Henderson violated his constitutional right to access to the

courts when he terminated a legal visit between Mixon and his

attorneys’ representative and denied the representative further

legal visits. Mixon cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by

the terminated visit as his attorney was informed that he could

conduct legal visits with Mixon or find another legal

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-20713 - 2 -

representative for such visits. See Henthorn v. Swinson, 955

F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992).

Henderson’s refusal to allow further legal visits with the

attorney’s representative in question was properly grounded in

security concerns considering the representative’s lying to

officials regarding the nature of her relationship with Mixon.

See Cruz v. Beto, 603 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir. 1979).

This court warns Mixon that the filing of frivolous appeals

could result in sanctions. E.g., Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417,

418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th

Cir. 1991). Mixon should review any other appeals pending in

this court at this time and move to withdraw any appeal that is

frivolous.

AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

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