Sosa v. Hinojosa

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40579 Summary Calendar THOMAS SOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNKNOWN HINOJOSA; CORRECTION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-95-CV-71 - - - - - - - - - - April 28, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Thomas Sosa, TDCJ inmate # 668562, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. Sosa alleged in the complaint that he was denied access to the courts while incarcerated at the Correction Corporation of * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 96-40579 - 2 - America facility in Laredo, Texas, because the law library at the facility was inadequate. Sosa’s motion to appeal IFP is GRANTED. Sosa’s motion for the production of documents is DENIED as unnecessary. An initial partial filing fee of $1.58 is assessed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Sosa also is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income, should he receive any funds in his account. Id. at § 1915(b)(2). The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is directed to forward payments from Sosa’s account to the clerk of the district court each time his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. Because no further briefing is necessary, we proceed to the merits of the appeal. See Clark v. Williams, 693 F.2d 381, 381- 82 (5th Cir. 1982). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sosa v. Hinojosa, No. L-95-71 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 1996). Motion for IFP GRANTED; motion for production of documents DENIED; AFFIRMED.