IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20636
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM KEATON
Plaintiff-Appellant,
ROBERT OTT, et. al
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-92-CV-2463)
February 2, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Keaton, a Texas prisoner, filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of various constitutional
rights. Before this court, Keaton has abandoned all claims but
two, that Texas prison authorities have applied T.D.C.J. Rule AM-
03.81.055 so as to violated his right to access to the courts,
and that certain prison officials violated his right to due
process by confiscating certain property bought from the prison
commissary without just compensation. Rule 03.81.055 provides
that prisoners may not talk to one another in the law library
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
without first obtaining the permission of the officer in charge.
Attached to Keaton’s complaint were eight affidavits, six of
which bear a remarkable similarity to one another, recounting
that the affiant had been peacefully and quietly seeking legal
information from fellow prisoners in the law library when he was
told to stop talking. Shortly after filing his complaint, Keaton
motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary
injunction. The district court denied the motion. Keaton
appealed to this court, and we affirmed on the ground that
Keaton’s complaint failed to allege that he suffered prejudice as
a result of any application of Rule 03.81.055.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, and Keaton appeals.
We affirm. Although Keaton is correct that prisoners
possess a constitutional right to access to the courts, he cannot
attack a rule like Rule 03.81.055 on this ground unless he
demonstrates that his position as a litigant has been adversely
affected by the application of the rule. See Walker v. Navarro
County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Keaton’s complaint
fails to allege any specific way in which his position as a
litigant has been affected. This court’s previous opinion relied
on this precise ground to affirm the district court’s denial of a
preliminary injunction. After our decision, Keaton did not
amended his complaint or bring any new evidence to the attention
of the district court.
2
Keaton’s challenge to the confiscation of his property
without due process fails because he possesses at least one of
two unexhausted state law methods of recovering the property, a
tort suit or an administrative action under Tex. Gov. Code §
500.007. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984);
Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
464 U.S. 897 (1983).
AFFIRMED.
3