M. R. Mikkilineni v. City of Houston, et al

Filing 920100601

Case: 09-20494

Document: 00511127985

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/01/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-20494 Summary Calendar June 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

M R MIKKILINENI Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF HOUSTON; DENNIS LLOYD; RUSSEL MAI; PHILIP BERNARD; ROGER BOULET; SECRETARY OF LABOR; JUAN PADRON; HAROLD DARK; JOHN LAWSON Defendants-Appellees -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M R MIKKILINENI Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF TEXAS; CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CV-944 USDC No. 4:01-CV-1894

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Case: 09-20494 PER CURIAM:*

Document: 00511127985 Page: 2 No. 09-20494

Date Filed: 06/01/2010

M. R. Mikkilineni appeals the district court's denial of his motion for permission to sue. Mikkilineni is required to file this type of motion because he has previously brought at least four frivolous suits against the defendants. E.g., Mikkilineni v. City of Houston, 37 F. App'x 88 (5th Cir. 2002) (unpublished). In 2003, after Mikkilineni filed suit against the defendants in the District Court for the District of Columbia, the district court held Mikkilineni in contempt of court, ordered him to pay a $25,000 compensatory sanction, and ordered him to obtain permission before filing suit again against the defendants. Six years later, Mikkilineni moved for permission to sue the defendants again, and the district court denied the motion. Mikkilineni's brief is largely devoted to the merits of his unsuccessful litigation against the defendants and the propriety of the 2003 contempt order, neither of which are covered by Mikkilineni's 2009 notice of appeal. With

respect to the denial of his motion for permission to sue, Mikkilineni argues that the district court erred because he has a right to bring an independent cause of action and because the denial of the motion resulted in a denial of his access to the courts. We review the enforcement of a sanction order for abuse of

discretion. See Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067-68 (5th Cir. 1998). To prevail on a denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, the claimant must show that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged violation. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1996). In order to demonstrate actual prejudice, a

prospective plaintiff must show his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Mikkilineni has failed to make this critical showing.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 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 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.

*

2

Case: 09-20494

Document: 00511127985 Page: 3 No. 09-20494

Date Filed: 06/01/2010

Mikkilineni's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. His motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

3