United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31110
Conference Calendar
CLARENCE SAMUELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LONNIE HAY; RAY HANSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CV-1100-SMH
--------------------
Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence Samuels, Louisiana prisoner # 133005, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). If his appellate brief is afforded liberal
construction, Samuels contends that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his claims as frivolous. First, Samuels
challenges the determination that his lost property claim was not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For purposes of his claim
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-31110
-2-
that prison guards interfered with his attempts to obtain relief
through the state administrative grievance process, Samuels
raises an exhaustion argument, contending that the actions of the
prison guards delayed his ability to pursue federal relief.
Finally, Samuels argues, for the first time, that the prison
guards acted with retaliatory intent. New allegations may not be
raised and will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999). Accordingly, we decline consideration of Samuels’s
retaliation argument.
As determined by the district court, Samuels’s argument
concerning the confiscation of his radio headphones fails because
Louisiana provides a post-deprivation remedy for property loss.
See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981); Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art 2315 (West
1997). Similarly, Samuels fails to show that the district court
abused its discretion when rejecting his allegations of denied
access to the state administrative grievance procedure. See
Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002).
Samuels’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; see also Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Samuels is cautioned that
the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and this court’s
dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th
No. 04-31110
-3-
Cir. 1996). Samuels is further cautioned that if he accumulates
three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed in
forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.