IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-20244
Conference Calendar
__________________
CURTIS MACK LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS; M. BRUCE THALER,
Warden; JERRY G. BRISHER; JOHN DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-95-CV-3276
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis Mack Lewis, #646507, appeals the dismissal of his
civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Lewis
contends that the district court erred in concluding that he had
not alleged that he was deprived of adequate medical care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-20244
-2-
Even if we liberally construe Lewis' complaint as alleging
an Eighth Amendment violation, the claim lacks merit. Lewis'
Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants in their official
capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst
State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984).
Further, Lewis' claim against the defendants in their individual
capacities is equally unavailing because Lewis does not allege
personal involvement or a causal connection between their actions
and the alleged violation. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,
303-04 (5th Cir. 1987).
Lewis does not address on appeal his claim against the
correctional officers concerning the injury to his arm, and it is
deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action as frivolous.
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d).
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. We previously warned Lewis in Lewis v. Collins, No.
95-20899 (5th Cir. Feb. 27, 1996), that further frivolous appeals
would invite the imposition of sanctions and cautioned him to
review any pending appeals to ensure that they did not raise
frivolous arguments. Lewis has not heeded this warning.
No. 96-20244
-3-
Accordingly, Lewis is barred from filing any pro se, in forma
pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma
pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to
this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission
of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the
clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are
directed to return to Lewis, unfiled, any attempted submission
inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.