Sias v. State of Louisiana

Fifth Circuit

Sias v. State of Louisiana

146 F. App'x 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 16, 2005

Docket04-30353

StatusUnpublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 146 F. App'x 719 (Sias v. State of Louisiana) 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

Sias v. State of Louisiana, 146 F. App'x 719 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Terence Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 127791, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)® and (ii) of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint. Sias’s complaint alleged that he was denied the *720 constitutional right of access to the courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Sias does not provide a clear assertion that indicates the manner in which the defendants allegedly denied his right of access to the courts. He also does not present a coherent argument showing that he has been prejudiced in his ability to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court. He therefore has failed to establish that he has suffered a constitutional deprivation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.1998). Sias’s allegations are vague and conclusory and are therefore insufficient to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. See Arnaud v. Odom, 870 F.2d 304, 307 (5th Cir.1989).

Sias also seeks an injunction and raises claims relating to disciplinary reports, retaliation, and the deprivation of good time credits. This court will not consider these claims because they were not presented to the district court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). To the extent that Sias seeks injunctive relief regarding his claim of denial of access to the courts, he fails to establish that such relief is warranted. See Fed. R.App. P. 8.

Sias’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Sias’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). This court cautions Sias that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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: *

Terence Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 127791, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)® and (ii) of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint. Sias’s complaint alleged that he was denied the *720 constitutional right of access to the courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Sias does not provide a clear assertion that indicates the manner in which the defendants allegedly denied his right of access to the courts. He also does not present a coherent argument showing that he has been prejudiced in his ability to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court. He therefore has failed to establish that he has suffered a constitutional deprivation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.1998). Sias’s allegations are vague and conclusory and are therefore insufficient to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. See Arnaud v. Odom, 870 F.2d 304, 307 (5th Cir.1989).

Sias also seeks an injunction and raises claims relating to disciplinary reports, retaliation, and the deprivation of good time credits. This court will not consider these claims because they were not presented to the district court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). To the extent that Sias seeks injunctive relief regarding his claim of denial of access to the courts, he fails to establish that such relief is warranted. See Fed. R.App. P. 8.

Sias’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Sias’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). This court cautions Sias that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

146 F. App'x 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sias-v-state-of-louisiana-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack