United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10501
Summary Calendar
HOWARD GUS GREEN
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
DOUG DRETKE; NANCY JOWERS; T. MILLER
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CV-230
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Howard Green, Texas prisoner # 854056, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2) of his pro
se, in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint. Our review of the
dismissal is de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th
Cir. 2005).
Green argues that his right of access to the courts was
violated when prison officials intentionally delayed in providing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10501
-2-
legal mail that was addressed and mailed to his prior prison
location and that the delay caused him to miss a deadline in an
appellate proceeding. Green’s allegations indicate that there
was a problem with the address change he sent to the Supreme
Court. There is nothing in the record to suggest, however, that
the delay in the receipt of mail from the Supreme Court was the
result of any intentional act or omission by the prison officials
and employees who Green named as defendants. See Richardson v.
McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 121-22 (5th Cir. 1988). His unsupported
allegations to the contrary are unavailing. See Brinkmann v.
Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986).
Green also argues that prison officials failed to comply
with internal rules and violated his constitutional rights
because they forwarded his mail by truck. Failure to follow the
prison’s own rules does not constitute a due process violation
“if constitutional minima are nevertheless met.” See Myers v.
Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).
Green’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of
Green’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the
dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). This court cautions Green that if he
accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in
No. 05-10501
-3-
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.