IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10365
Summary Calendar
KEVIN REID ALTHOUSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, Clerk’s Office (Jim Hamlin); DAVID
DANIELS, Criminal Manager - Dallas County District Clerk’s Office;
CARMEN VENUS, Deputy Clerk - Dallas County District Clerk’s Office;
CLAIRE MOSES, Deputy Clerk - Dallas County District Clerk’s Office;
VIRGIL MELTON, Court Coordinator 265th Judicial District Court,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-2225-M
August 5, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin Reid Althouse, Texas prisoner #861608, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
1915A(b)(1). Althouse contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his claims for denial of access to the courts.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
“[B]efore a prisoner may prevail on a claim that his
constitutional right of access to the courts was violated, he must
demonstrate ‘that his position as a litigant was prejudiced by his
denial of access to the courts.’”1 Because Althouse failed to
assert that the defendants’ alleged actions prejudiced his position
as a litigant, the district court did not err in dismissing
Althouse’s complaint as frivolous.2
Althouse’s appeal is likewise entirely without merit and must
be dismissed as frivolous.3 This dismissal of Althouse’s appeal as
frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit as
frivolous constitute two strikes against Althouse for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).4 If one other action or appeal filed by
Althouse is dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim, he will be barred from
bringing a civil action or appeal as a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.5
1
McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1998)
(quoting Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996)).
2
See Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001)
(per curiam) (stating that a complaint is “frivolous” if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact).
3
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
4
See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 822-23 (5th Cir.
1997); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
5
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2
APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
3