IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11286
Conference Calendar
LARRY K. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN GILBERT, Regional Director; NO FIRST NAME JAMES, JR.,
Food Service Manager; E. BOND, Warden; D. BRYANT, Licensed
Vocational Nurse; BILLY WILLIAMS, Correctional Officer III;
C. DAVIS, Correctional Officer III; B. WEDEKING, Correctional
Officer III; T. DRIVER, Sergeant; D. LEA, Correctional Officer
III; H. TALIB, Chaplin; S. SCOTT, Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-261
--------------------
June 14, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry K. Johnson, Texas state prisoner # 577737, appeals the
magistrate judge’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & 1915A(b)(1).
Johnson argues that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in
dismissing as frivolous his claims that the defendants violated
his constitutional right to the free exercise of religion by not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-11286
-2-
providing him with a pork-free diet. He also contends that the
magistrate judge abused her discretion in dismissing as frivolous
his claim that defendants Williams and Bryant retaliated against
him by denying him medication on one occasion.
Johnson’s claims that he was served meals containing pork
before and after being placed on the “pork-free” list are mere
negligence claims, which do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th
Cir. 1988); Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 n.2 (5th Cir.
1996).
Johnson offers nothing more than his conclusional assertions
that he was denied medication on one occasion in retaliation
against him because he filed a prior grievance against Williams.
An inmate’s personal belief that he is a victim of retaliation is
not sufficient to support a claim. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d
322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999).
Johnson’s 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.
The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous
by the magistrate judge each count as a "strike" for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson, therefore, has two "strikes"
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Johnson that once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis
in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
No. 00-11286
-3-
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Johnson v. Gilbert
Combined Opinion