IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40724
Summary Calendar
ARTHUR J. THOMPSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAYNE SCOTT,
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division;
DAN MORALES, Attorney General; TIMOTHY WEST, Warden;
JACK MANGRUM, Captain; KEITH GORSUCH;
JOHN ALLEN, Lieutenant; BILLYE FORREST, Lieutenant;
BRYAN SEWELL, Correctional Officer;
JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer; JANE DOE, Correctional Officer;
JOHN DOE, Director of Health Administration,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:95-CV-1024)
- - - - - - - - - -
June 4, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur Thompson, Jr., a state prisoner, appeals an order
dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a prisoner’s civil rights
action may be dismissed as frivolous if it has no arguable basis in
law or in fact. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.
1997); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). We
review for abuse of discretion. Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. Thompson
challenges the dismissals of his excessive force, denial of access
to the courts, denial of medical care, inadequate diet, and free
exercise claims. Each claim is insufficient.
Regarding his excessive force claim, Thompson must “establish
that force was not 'applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, [but] maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm,' and that he suffered an injury.” Eason v. Holt,
73 F.3d 600, 601-02 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (alteration in original)). Thompson’s factual
allegations fail to establish this, but rather reflect that minimal
force was used in an effort to restore order. The district court
did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in dismissing this claim
as legally frivolous.
Regarding his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, Thompson
has failed to indicate how he was prejudiced by the confiscation of
his legal papers. See Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th
Cir. 1992). Regarding his assertions of denial of medical care and
inadequate diet, Thompson does not provide any argument in support
of this issue and does not identify the purportedly unresolved
factual issue(s). Accordingly, he has failed to show that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing this claim as
2
frivolous.
Regarding his free exercise claim, Thompson contends that he
was ordered to stop his “fasting prayer,” in violation of the First
Amendment. Although reasonable opportunities must be afforded to
prisoners to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments, Pedraza v. Meyer, 919 F.2d 317, 320 (5th
Cir. 1990), Thompson’s conclusional argument fails to demonstrate
either that a practice of his religion was infringed upon, or that
any such infringement was unreasonable.
The preceding demonstrates that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous.
Because this appeal is also frivolous, it too is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983);
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Because Thompson has already been warned that the
filing of a frivolous appeal would invite the imposition of a
sanction, see Thompson v. Morales, No. 98-40723 (5th Cir. Feb. 19,
1999), we accordingly BAR Thompson from filing any future pro se
pleading or appeal in any court subject to our jurisdiction without
the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The
clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts
in this circuit are DIRECTED to return to Thompson, unfiled, any
attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. To obtain such
permission, Thompson must send a letter, requesting such permission
and attaching copies of the proposed filing and this order to the
clerk of this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
3