United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20294
Summary Calendar
GORDON RAY SIMMONDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-4453
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gordon Ray Simmonds, Texas prisoner # 932489, appeals the
district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary
injunction and the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that the
district court erred in dismissing his complaint, in which he
sought a preliminary injunction, instead of ruling initially on
the preliminary injunction. The district court determined 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20294
-2-
Simmonds had not shown the likelihood of success on the merits on
any of his claims. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107
(5th Cir. 1991). Once the district court determined that
Simmonds’s allegations failed to state a claim, the district
court was required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A to dismiss the
civil action.
Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his due process
rights because he does not have sufficient storage space for all
of his property and his property which is not properly stored
will be subject to confiscation. Simmonds has not shown that he
has a right protected by the Due Process Clause to possess a
certain amount of property or to store his personal property in a
particular manner.
Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his right of
access to the courts because it limits the amount of legal
materials he can possess in his cell and restricts his ability to
act as a writ writer for other inmates. Simmonds has no
constitutional right to provide legal assistance to other
inmates. See Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 228 (2001). Simmonds
has not alleged or shown that his position as a litigant in a
specific case was prejudiced in any way by the enforcement of the
new regulation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54 (1996).
Simmonds argues that the new regulation violates his right
to free exercise of religion in that it restricts the amount of
religious materials that he may possess and store in his cell.
No. 03-20294
-3-
Simmonds acknowledged in his complaint that the new regulation
was adopted to prevent fire and other safety hazards. The
district court did not err in determining that the regulation was
reasonably related to a legitimate penological goal of preventing
fire and other safety hazards. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22,
25 (5th Cir. 1995).
Simmonds argues that the regulation violates his equal
protection rights because female prisoners are allowed extra
storage space for personal hygiene items. Because Simmonds has
not shown that male and female prisoners in the Texas prisons are
similarly situated, the district court did not err in dismissing
his equal protection claim. See Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736,
746-47 (5th Cir. 2002).
Simmonds argues that prison officials violated the
regulation itself because his storage unit is smaller than
allowed by the regulation. A violation of a prison regulation
without more does not state a constitutional violation. See
Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, this Court AFFIRMS the district court’s
judgment and DENIES Simmonds’s motion to strike the Attorney
General of Texas’s brief.