IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10903
Summary Calendar
CECIL RAY PATTERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LIEUTENANT GUERRERO; ROBERTS; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:97-CV-236
- - - - - - - - - -
April 28, 1998
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges,
PER CURIAM:*
Cecil Ray Patterson, Texas prisoner # 779579, challenges the
district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Patterson alleges
that he was denied access to the courts by being denied access to
typewriters, free photocopying, and greater access to the
prison’s law library.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-10903
-2-
Patterson failed to allege that his position as a litigant
was actually prejudiced by the asserted deficiencies of the
prison’s law library or his access to it. As such, he failed to
state a claim for denial of access to the courts. Lewis v.
Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2179-81 (1996). The district court did
not err in dismissing that claim. Walker v. Navarro County Jail,
4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993).
Patterson also challenges the district court’s refusal to
allow him to amend his § 1983 complaint to state a claim for
retaliation. At the time Patterson sought to amend his
complaint, no responsive pleading had been filed. Because the
amendment on its face does not appear to be frivolous or legally
insufficient, the district court erred in refusing to allow the
amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d
1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we vacate the district
court’s order refusing to permit the amendment, and remand the
retaliation claim for further proceedings.
Patterson also filed a motion for a temporary injunction, a
“request for a court order,” and a “motion for class action
status,” in connection with his denial-of-access-to-the-courts
claim. Because we determine that the district court did not err
in dismissing that claim, the motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED; MOTIONS
DENIED.