IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30408
Summary Calendar
JAMES HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEROY HOLIDAY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-1595)
November 3, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Hawthorne, Louisiana prisoner #83561, appeals the 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal, as frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint.
Hawthorne’s claim for compensation for the loss of his
personal property when he was transferred from one correctional
facility to another does not state a claim for the violation of a
constitutional right. See Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707, 712 (5th
Cir. 1995). “Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of
rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of care arising out of tort law. Remedy for the latter type of
injury must be sought in state court under traditional tort-law
principles.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979) (emphasis
added); see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-33 (1986).
Hawthorne’s claim for damages resulting from mental or
emotional injury is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal
civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional
injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of
physical injury.”).
And, because Hawthorne has not briefed his alleged entitlement
to injunctive relief, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
In sum, Hawthorne’s complaint was properly dismissed as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, this appeal is
without arguable merit and also frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (defining frivolous appeal as one
without arguable merit). The appeal being frivolous, it is hereby
DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis, such
as the action at hand. Hawthorne is cautioned that the dismissal
of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),
as does the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as
frivolous. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996) (“[B]oth the frivolous appeal and a lower court's dismissal
as frivolous count.”). Therefore, Hawthorne has two “strikes”
2
under § 1915(g). Hawthorne is further cautioned that if he
accumulates three such “strikes”, 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 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
AFFIRMED
3