IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
Nos. 96-50084 & 96-50155
Summary Calendar
_________________________
GLEN C. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CV-1024
_________________________________________________________________
June 21, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glen C. James, a Texas state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, appeals from the district court's (1) dismissal of
his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d), and (2) subsequent order imposing sanctions for his filing
a document in that court containing extremely vulgar and offensive
language.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
James asserts that the court abused its discretion in
dismissing his action pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, noting
that he sued the defendants in their official capacities and sought
only prospective injunctive relief. The dismissal is affirmed on
the alternative ground that, based on James' filing in district
court that he was no longer being subjected to the challenged strip
searches, the action is moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S.
486, 496 (1969) (holding "a case is moot when the issues presented
are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome"); Bickford v. International Speedway
Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding this court may
affirm on any ground, including grounds not considered by the
district court).
James contends that the district court lacked authority to
rule upon a document he filed in that court after he filed his
notice of appeal, and that it abused its discretion in imposing
sanctions against him for that filing. He maintains also that the
sanctions violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The imposition of sanctions was an appropriate exercise of the
court's inherent authority. See Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of
America v. Energy Gathering Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1410-11 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 882 (1994).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -