IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10409
Conference Calendar
__________________
GEORGE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID WILLIAMS, Sheriff, Tarrant County,
TX; ELGIN, Officer, Greenbay Facility,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94CV00532
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 19, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lopez challenges the district court's dismissal of his
complaint as frivolous. An in forma pauperis suit may be
dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-
33 (1992). We review such a dismissal for an abuse of
discretion. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. In determining whether the
district court abused its discretion by dismissing Lopez's
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10409
-2-
complaint without affording him an opportunity to amend, we
consider whether Lopez's "allegations may pass section 1915(d)
muster" with additional factual development. Eason v. Thaler, 14
F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994).
To prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show
that the defendant deprived him of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States while acting under
color of state law. Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th
Cir. 1988). A defendant "must be either personally involved in
the acts causing the deprivation of a person's constitutional
rights, or there must be a causal connection between an act of
the [defendant] and the constitutional violation sought to be
redressed." Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir. 1983).
Lopez does not allege any personal involvement by Sheriff
Williams, nor does he implicate a jail policy or custom.
Although Lopez successfully alleges Officer Elgin's personal
involvement, his allegations indicate, at most, that Elgin was
negligent. A state official's negligent act which causes an
unintended loss of property does not implicate the Due Process
Clause. Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir. 1988).
Lopez raises for the first time on appeal claims under the
Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 6252-19 of
the "Texas State Claims Act." These issues are not purely legal
and cannot be addressed by this court. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920
F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.