IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41507
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM HALL, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY PETERSON, Deputy Director;
GARY J. GOMEZ, Director; DOYLE
MCELVANEY, Warden; ENRIQUE FRANCO;
GERNARDO RODRIGUEZ, JR.; CURTIS N.
WALTON, Lieutenant; ROGELIO G.
MARTINEZ; BARBARA A. EASTMAN,
Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-97-CV-711
---------------------
May 31, 2000
Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Hall, Jr., Texas prisoner # 267649, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Hall argues that the
defendants denied his right of access to the courts, read his
legal papers on one occasion, retaliated against him by filing a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-41507
- 2 -
false disciplinary report, and denied him due process at his
disciplinary proceeding. As a result of the alleged denial of
due process, Hall contends that he was punished and deprived of
his liberty, including the loss of 30 days of good-time credits.
Hall also requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Hall’s complaint as frivolous. Based on Hall’s
factual allegations, he has not established any constitutional
claims cognizable under § 1983. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 351-52 (1996); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1052 (1999); Tighe v. Wall, 100
F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4
F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, this appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Hall’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal is DENIED as moot.
The district court’s dismissal of Hall’s complaint and this
court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two
“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hall is CAUTIONED
that if he accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will
not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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.
See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.