IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30736
Conference Calendar
BEN ALAN SNIPES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KELLY WARD; JERRY GODWIN; WALTER TOLLIVER;
BATSON, Lieutenant; RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary,
Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-493
- - - - - - - - - -
April 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ben Alan Snipes, Louisiana inmate # 68731/372123, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit as frivolous. The district
court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We
review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for an
abuse of discretion. Id.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-30736
-2-
Snipes’ allegations that the defendants retaliated against
him with threats and verbal harassments do not demonstrate the
violation of a constitutional right. See Bender v. Brumley, 1
F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993)(pretrial detainee)(allegations
of verbal abuse and threats by prison officials do not state a
claim under § 1983).
Snipes’ allegations that the defendants violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment by ordering him to work outside in
freezing temperatures without gloves do not demonstrate a
constitutional violation. Snipes did not allege conditions that
deprived him of life’s necessities, he did not allege serious
injury that required medical attention, and he did not allege
that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See
Harris v. Angelina County, Texas, 31 F.3d 331, 334 (5th Cir.
1994); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 834 (1994).
We cannot entertain Snipes’ claim, raised for the first time
on appeal, that the defendants limited his access to the courts
by requiring him to seek assistance from a single, unqualified
law clerk and that his ability to research statutes was limited
by the computer system available for inmate use. Cf. Travelers
Indem. Co. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 166 F.3d 761, 770 (5th Cir.
1999) (legal theory of recovery waived by not raising it in
district court).
Snipes’ appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
No. 98-30736
-3-
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal
in the district court of the complaint as frivolous count as two
separate “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We
caution Snipes that once he accumulates three strikes, 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.
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; WARNING ISSUED.