IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40633
Conference Calendar
__________________
JIHAAD A.M.E. SAAHIR,
f/k/a Jehad Abdullah Shabazz,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W.J. ESTELLE, JR; M.D. HERKLOTZ; E.E. ALFORD;
D. LOWRY; DAVID M. BEAGLE; OFFICER SOAPE;
JOHN L. LINDSEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:83-CV-225
- - - - - - - - - -
December 19, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case is here on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal. Saahir argues that this court's prior decision
never decided whether the tapes were religious or non-religious.
He admits that some of the tapes are the same tapes which were
the subject of this court's prior decision. He contends that it
is not legal for the defendant to determine what kind of musical
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that 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Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.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. 95-40633
-2-
tapes he needs to practice his religion. He contends that he has
proven that music is part of his religious practices, and that
his practices are not necessarily the same as all Muslim sects.
He argues that he should have been afforded a hearing so that the
district court could determine whether these tapes are a part of
his Muslim practices.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, we deny IFP
and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Saahir that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Saahir is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.