IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40746
Summary Calendar
GLENDALE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMIE E. ALFORD, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:93-CV-594)
April 11, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glendale Johnson sued various Texas prison officials, alleging
they violated his constitutional rights by denying him hot meals as
punishment for refusing to shave while on lockdown status. The
district court disagreed and dismissed his civil rights complaint
as frivolous. Johnson appeals. We affirm.
I.
The district court found that Johnson deliberately refused to
shave in violation of prison rules; that, as a result, prison
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
officials did not permit Johnson to go to the prison chow hall;
that on such occasions, Johnson received cold meals known as
"Johnnie sacks" in his cell; and that at no time was Johnson ever
denied a meal. Johnson does not contest any of these findings as
clearly erroneous.
Johnson has failed to show how the denial of hot meals as part
of the prison officials' effort to maintain prison order and
security constitutes an "atypical and significant hardship on the
inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Johnson's reliance
on prison directives suggesting inmates in lockdown will receive
hot meals is unavailing. Id.
Johnson's other claims of error are also meritless. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a
default judgment for Johnson when the defendants were less than two
months late in filing their answer and Johnson failed to show
prejudice arising from that delay. Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343,
345 (5th Cir. 1977). Nor did the district court abuse its
discretion in refusing to enter a default judgment against those
defendants who failed to attend the Flowers hearing. See Wells v.
Rushing, 755 F.2d 376, 380 n.5 (5th Cir. 1985).
Johnson was not entitled to the appointment of counsel in this
§ 1983 suit. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir.
1982) (requiring party to demonstrate that case presents
"exceptional circumstances" warranting appointment of counsel).
Johnson did not explain how the district court's failure to notify
2
him that he was required to submit a witness list prior to the
Flowers hearing constituted an abuse of its discretion. Finally,
the district court did not deny Johnson the right to a jury trial
since he did not demand a jury trial in his amended complaint nor
did he object at the Flowers hearing to its absence.
AFFIRMED.
3