IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50486
Summary Calendar
__________________
SYNNACHIA McQUEEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAROL S. VANCE, Chairman; JAMES A. COLLINS,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JACK M. GARNER, Warden;
RICHARD HARVEY, Officer; CLARENCE BAKER, CO3,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-94-CV-194
- - - - - - - - - -
September 20, 1995
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Synnachia McQueen's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal is DENIED.
A district court "has broad discretion in deciding whether
to order a transfer." Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811
F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a).
The magistrate judge in the Austin Division found that McQueen
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-50486
-2-
was incarcerated and allegedly was deprived of his property in
Coryell County, Texas, a finding McQueen does not challenge.
Coryell County is in the Waco Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2).
The district court in the Austin Division did not abuse its
discretion by transferring McQueen's case to the Waco Division.
McQueen contends that he was deprived of his headphones and
sweatshirt without due process of law. He argues that because
the deprivation occurred pursuant to TDCJ's contraband and
clothes-hanging policies he should have received a predeprivation
hearing. McQueen also argues that TDCJ's contraband policy
violates due process because it allows deprivation without a
predeprivation hearing.
Deprivation of constitutionally protected interests pursuant
to established state policy may violate due process despite the
availability of post-deprivation remedies. Matthias v. Bingley,
906 F.2d 1047, 1056 (5th Cir.), modified in part on other
grounds, 915 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1990). However, "[t]he necessity
for quick action by the state coupled with an adequate post
deprivation hearing [may] obviate[] the need for a predeprivation
hearing." Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988).
Prison security demands require that prison officials be
able to deprive inmates of property believed to be contraband
without holding a pre-deprivation hearing. Prison officials
therefore may satisfy the demands of due process with adequate
post-deprivation proceedings. TDCJ's post-deprivation grievance
procedures are adequate to satisfy the Due Process Clause.
McBride v. Collins, No. 93-7468, slip op. at 3 (5th Cir. Jan. 19,
No. 95-50486
-3-
1994)(unpublished).
Additionally, TDCJ prohibits prisoners from hanging their
clothing in a manner that blocks an officer's view of any area.
Prisoners are proscribed from hanging clothing on windows, on
walls, or in front of vents. TDCJ-ID, INMATE ORIENTATION HANDBOOK
§ III(C)(4)(1990). Again, prison officials must be able to take
immediate action to remedy violations of this rule, as violation
of the rule could implicate security concerns. See Beck, 842
F.2d at 761. Post-deprivation remedies therefore are adequate to
satisfy due process.
Moreover, in addition to prison grievances, McQueen could
have pursued a state-law conversion action. See Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). McQueen's procedural
due process contention is unavailing.
Assuming that McQueen asserted his substantive due process
contention in timely fashion in the district court, see McGruder
v. Phelps, 608 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1979); cf. United States
v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992), his contention
is unavailing. McQueen's allegations give rise to a procedural,
not a substantive, due process contention. See Griffith v.
Johnson, 899 F.2d 1427, 1435 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498
U.S. 1040 (1991).
"Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455;
see Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 847 F.2d 221, 225-26
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 984 (1988). Adverse rulings
No. 95-50486
-4-
alone do not call into question a district judge's impartiality.
Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157-58 (1994).
McQueen's contention that a series of rulings by the district
judge and magistrate judge demonstrates prejudice and warrants
recusal therefore is unavailing. Additionally, McQueen's general
allegations of ex parte communication and socializing by the
magistrate judge, which are based on hearsay and on which McQueen
does not elaborate, are insufficient to call into question the
magistrate judge's impartiality.
We construe the $120 monetary sanction imposed by the
district court as an imposition of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). That statute provides that in cases in which a
plaintiff is proceeding IFP, "[j]udgment may be rendered for
costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other
cases[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This court reviews decisions of
district courts pursuant to § 1915(e) under the abuse-of-
discretion standard. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th
Cir. 1994). A case need not be frivolous to merit imposition of
costs. Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1988);
Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231, 232 (5th Cir. 1988), mandamus
denied, 493 U.S. 806 (1989).
Lesser sanctions in other cases have failed to dissuade
McQueen from pursuing frivolous litigation. McQueen v. Mata, No.
95-50020, slip op. at 3 (5th Cir. Mar 17, 1995)(unpublished)
(dismissal without prejudice affirmed); McQueen v. Mata, No. 94-
50296, slip op. at 6 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 1994)(unpublished)($25
monetary sanction affirmed). Because stern measures are
No. 95-50486
-5-
necessary to curb McQueen's recreational litigation, we affirm
the imposition of sanctions on McQueen.
APPEAL DISMISSED.