Steve Oudems v. Patsy Bell

Fifth Circuit

Steve Oudems v. Patsy Bell

389 F. App'x 413

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 2010

Docket10-10128

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 F. App'x 413 (Steve Oudems v. Patsy Bell) 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

Steve Oudems v. Patsy Bell, 389 F. App'x 413 (5th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Steve Louis Oudems, Texas prisoner # 1070555, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Oudems, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis (IFP), alleges that the prison library staff and officials at the Tulia Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied him access to the courts. Specifically, he asserts that the law library at the Tulia Unit lacked the legal materials necessary for him to prepare a motion for authorization to file a second or successive habeas application in this court. He also alleges that his motion and docu- *414 merits, including correspondence from this court regarding the filing of his motion, were “lost in the mail.” The district court determined that Oudems was unable to show any actual injury in connection with his claims and dismissed Oudems’ complaint with prejudice as frivolous.

Although Oudems argues generally that his right to access the courts and right to due process were violated, he does not specify any claims that he would have raised in a motion for authorization to file a successive motion in this court, nor does he identify any issue he was prevented from researching. As such, he has failed to demonstrate any actual injury in connection with his claims. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-416, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002).

Because Oudems has not raised an issue of arguable merit, his appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). As such, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Oudems’s action as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Oudems is warned that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to Section 1915(g), he may not 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.

APPEAL DISMISSED; 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: *

Steve Louis Oudems, Texas prisoner # 1070555, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Oudems, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis (IFP), alleges that the prison library staff and officials at the Tulia Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied him access to the courts. Specifically, he asserts that the law library at the Tulia Unit lacked the legal materials necessary for him to prepare a motion for authorization to file a second or successive habeas application in this court. He also alleges that his motion and docu- *414 merits, including correspondence from this court regarding the filing of his motion, were “lost in the mail.” The district court determined that Oudems was unable to show any actual injury in connection with his claims and dismissed Oudems’ complaint with prejudice as frivolous.

Although Oudems argues generally that his right to access the courts and right to due process were violated, he does not specify any claims that he would have raised in a motion for authorization to file a successive motion in this court, nor does he identify any issue he was prevented from researching. As such, he has failed to demonstrate any actual injury in connection with his claims. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-416, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002).

Because Oudems has not raised an issue of arguable merit, his appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). As such, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Oudems’s action as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Oudems is warned that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to Section 1915(g), he may not 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.

APPEAL DISMISSED; 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)

389 F. App'x 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steve-oudems-v-patsy-bell-ca5-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack