IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60746
Summary Calendar
JOE WHITE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VAN VANDIVER; KHURSHID YUSUFF;
KAY LOOSIER; S. ROBERTSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:99-cv-150-BrS
--------------------
May 23, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe White, federal prisoner # 05405-067, appeals the
district court’s judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of
the defendants and dismissing his Bivens** complaint as
frivolous. White’s motion to strike the appellees’ brief as
untimely is DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
**
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
No. 00-60746
-2-
A district court may dismiss a prisoner’s suit if it
determines that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999).
A dismissal of a claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1), like a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Berry, 192 F.3d at 507.
White argues that the defendants conspired to transfer him
to another prison unit in retaliation for his exercise of his
right of access to the courts. White did not allege direct
evidence of a retaliatory motive or “allege a chronology of
events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” Woods
v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations
and citation omitted).
White argues that the transfer violated his due process
rights because the mandatory language of the Bureau of Prisons
Program Statement 5100.06 created a liberty interest. White’s
transfer did not impose an “atypical and significant hardship on
[him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).
White argues that the defendants violated his constitutional
right of access to the courts. White has not demonstrated an
actual injury or that he was prevented from filing a necessary
legal document with a court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349-51 (1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing White’s complaint as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.