IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40539
Summary Calendar
WILLIE RAY McDONALD
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WENDY M. WACKER, Mailroom Supervisor,
Michael Unit, Individually and in
official capacity, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(6:96-CV-905)
September 24, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Ray McDonald, a prisoner in the Texas prison system,
pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)&(ii).
McDonald contends that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing his claims. He argues that the magistrate judge
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
erroneously resolved disputed facts and that his complaint should
not have been dismissed as frivolous prior to its service on the
defendants.
McDonald’s complaint originates from his purported
mistreatment at the hands of the mailroom staff at his correctional
facility. In April 1996, McDonald’s family sent him some stationary
purchased from a K-Mart store, but the prison’s mailroom refused to
accept the stationary, acting pursuant to prison regulations
prohibiting the receipt of packages for prisoners from unrecognized
vendors. McDonald contends that the mailroom’s refusal to accept
the package was in retaliation against him for his earlier filing
of grievances against the mailroom staff. Furthermore, he argues
that he had received K-Mart stationary in the past.
McDonald’s complaint contains allegations against the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) and
various mailroom employees in their official capacities. The
Eleventh Amendment, however, bars suit for civil rights violations
in federal court against state agencies and their employees in
their official capacities. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67
(1985). The TDCJ-ID is an instrumentality of the state, and
therefore enjoys immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Harris v. Angelina County, 31 F.3d 331, 337 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994).
Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment bars McDonald’s claims against the
mailroom employees in their official capacities.
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
the suit against the remaining defendants. As the mailroom
employees were simply following prison regulations, their conduct
by itself does not raise the inference of retaliation. Moreover,
McDonald alleges no additional facts supporting a retaliatory
motive. Accordingly, his retaliation claim was properly dismissed
as frivolous. See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th
Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 (1988).
McDonald’s due process claim is similarly meritless. McDonald
contends that his due process rights were violated by the mailroom
employees’ failure to follow prison regulations concerning
correspondence to inmates. Yet as we have noted previously, “[a]
state’s failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not
establish a violation of due process, because constitutional minima
may nevertheless have been met.” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235,
1251-52 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Here, McDonald’s allegations that the defendants violated prison
correspondence rules do not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123 (1994).
Hence, dismissal of the lawsuit is required. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)&(ii). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that McDonald’s claims were frivolous,
see Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997), and
McDonald has failed to demonstrate that the district court resolved
3
disputed facts in reaching that conclusion, see Wilson v.
Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
4