United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40680
Conference Calendar
IVERY TRAVENO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRENDA R. WILKINSON, Unit Librarian;
SHERMAN BELL, Classification Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:02-CV-584
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ivery Traveno Williams, Texas prisoner No. 183233, moves
this court to supplement the district court record. The motion
is DENIED. Williams has appealed the district court’s dismissal
of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Williams argues that
Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) law librarian Brenda
Wilkinson violated his right of access to the courts by denying
him face-to-face legal visits with TDCJ inmate James Lewis; that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40680
-2-
the Texas Parole Board violated his due process rights by
reviewing his eligibility for parole every two years instead of
annually; that Ms. Wilkinson retaliated against Williams; and
that TDCJ Classification Director Sherman Bell assigned Williams
to the wrong prison classification and computed his sentence
incorrectly.
Williams does not have a right to provide legal assistance
to or to receive legal assistance from Inmate Lewis. Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1976); Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 43
(5th Cir. 1996). We do not address Williams’s argument
concerning the Texas Parole Board because he did not raise this
issue in the district court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Williams has not offered
evidence or alleged a chronology of events that supports his
claim that Ms. Wilkinson retaliated against him. Woods v. Smith,
60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Williams’s claims that Mr.
Bell assigned him to the wrong prison classification and
miscomputed his sentence are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 because they implicate the duration of Williams’s
confinement. Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.
1998)(en banc).
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.