United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60428
Summary Calendar
CHARLIE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SONJA STANCIEL, Correctional Officer II, BRENDA THOMPSON,
Lieutenant; DONALD A. CABANO, Superintendent; CHRISTOPHER B.
EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:04-CV-339
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlie Taylor, Mississippi prisoner # R6798, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights
complaint challenging Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC)
officials’ issuance of a rules violation report (RVR) concerning
his possession of excessive legal materials and the officials’
subsequent destruction of those materials.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Liberally construed, Taylor’s appellate brief argues that the
issuance of RVR # 565234 and his resulting loss of privileges
violated his due process rights. However, a loss of privileges for
30 days does not give rise to a protected liberty interest because
the loss does not “impose[] atypical and significant hardship on
the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Liberally construed, Taylor’s brief contends that MDOC
regulations do not provide for the destruction of excess legal and
religious materials and that officials’ destruction of his legal
materials constituted an unconstitutional taking without due
process of the law. However, under the facts conceded by Taylor,
there is no indication that he was not provided with due process of
the law. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990).
Taylor also contends that officials’ destruction of his legal
materials denied him access to the courts because he was unable to
file a brief in a pending civil action as a result of his loss of
the materials. However, Taylor has not shown how the lack of the
legal materials prevented him from preparing or filing a brief, and
thus he has not shown the actual injury required for the filing of
a denial of access to the courts claim. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996); Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821
(5th Cir. 1993).
Liberally construed, Taylor’s brief argues that the district
court erred in sanctioning him under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 because the
2
defendants did not move for such sanctions and because his claims
had merit. However, a court may, on its own initiative, enter an
order describing Rule 11 violations and ordering a party to show
why it has not violated Rule 11. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1)(B).
Furthermore, because Taylor’s substantive claims lacked merit, the
district court did not err in determining that they were frivolous
or in issuing sanctions as a result. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1),
(c).
Taylor argues that the district court’s sanction, which
required that Taylor receive the district court’s permission before
filing a case, violates his right of access to the courts.
However, because the district court’s sanction does not prevent
Taylor from filing nonfrivolous suits, Taylor has failed to show
the actual injury required to prevail on a claim of denial of
access to the courts. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-51.
Taylor argues that District Court Judge W. Allen Pepper erred
in failing to recuse himself for a conflict of interest arising
from Judge Pepper’s involvement in Taylor’s prior civil rights
suits and from Taylor’s filing of a complaint against Judge Pepper
as part of another district court case. However, Taylor has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying
Taylor’s recusal request. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994); United States v. Mizell, 88 F.3d 288, 299 (5th
Cir. 1996).
3
Taylor’s appeal is frivolous and without arguable merit. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly,
Taylor’s appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
This court previously warned Taylor that filing frivolous
actions or appeals in the district court or this court would result
in monetary penalties and restrictions on his ability to file
actions and appeals. See Taylor v. Milton, No. 04-60569 (5th Cir.
Feb. 15, 2005) (unpublished). Accordingly, we order Taylor to pay
$500 in sanctions to the clerk of this court.
Taylor is barred from filing in this court or in any court
subject to this court’s jurisdiction any appeal, motion, and/or
pleading in connection with this case until the total amount of the
sanction imposed is paid in full. Further, the clerk of this
court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this
circuit are directed to refuse to file any civil complaint or
appeal by Taylor unless Taylor submits proof of satisfaction of
this sanction. If Taylor attempts to file any further notices of
appeal or original proceedings in this court without such proof the
clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other
submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been paid
will be neither addressed nor acknowledged. Upon proof that the
sanction has been paid, Taylor is required to seek advance written
permission of a judge of the forum court before filing any civil
appeal or any initial civil pleading. Taylor is cautioned that any
future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court
4
subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional
sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
5