United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 21, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11323
Summary Calendar
KENNETH LEON CRAFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARY ANN K. LAMB,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CV-219
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Leon Craft, Texas prisoner # 781171, has appealed
the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights
complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Craft contends that the defendant
prison librarian violated his right of access to the courts by
refusing, pursuant to prison policy, to apply postage to and mail
a letter. Although the refusal to assist an inmate in Craft’s
situation arguably could result in an unconstitutional denial of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-11323
-2-
access to the courts, see Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317
(5th Cir. 1999), Craft’s position as a litigant was not
compromised by any delay attributable to the defendant. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-52 (1996). Craft’s failure to
comply with the Supreme Court’s filing requirements resulted from
his own inattentiveness.
Craft contends that his right to equal protection was
violated because the defendant acted arbitrarily and pursuant to
a prison policy that does not have a rational basis or a
legitimate governmental objective. He complains that indigent
and non-indigent prisoners on lock-down status were treated
disparately because indigent prisoners could have their legal
mail posted under the policy but that non-indigent prisoners
could not have their mail posted. See Stefanoff v. Hays County,
Tex., 154 F.3d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir. 1998) (equal protection
standard). Grievance records filed by Craft in support of his
complaint reflect that non-indigent prisoners in Craft’s
situation “shall be allowed correspondence and legal supplies
through the indigent program.” In other words, non-indigent
prisoners are treated the same as indigent prisoners, not
disparately.
Craft contends that his First Amendment right to freedom of
speech was violated by the administrative policy. This argument
is foreclosed by Daigre v. Maggio, 719 F.2d 1310, 1312–13 (5th
Cir. 1983).
No. 03-11323
-3-
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the
complaint is
AFFIRMED.