Steve Oudems v. Patsy Bell, et al

Filing

Case: 10-10128

Document: 00511201209

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/11/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-10128 S u m m a r y Calendar August 11, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

S T E V E LOUIS OUDEMS, P la in t iff - Appellant v. P A T S Y BELL; DIANA BOZEMAN; FRANK HOKE, D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CV-298

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* S tev e Louis Oudems, Texas prisoner # 1070555, appeals the district court's d is m is s a l of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Oudems, proceeding p r o se and informa pauperis (IFP), alleges that the prison library staff and o ffic ia ls at the Tulia Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied h im access to the courts. Specifically, he asserts that the law library at the Tulia U n it lacked the legal materials necessary for him to prepare a motion for a u t h o r iz a t io n to file a second or successive habeas application in this court. He
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Case: 10-10128

Document: 00511201209 Page: 2 No. 10-10128

Date Filed: 08/11/2010

a ls o alleges that his motion and documents, including correspondence from this c o u r t regarding the filing of his motion, were "lost in the mail." The district c o u r t determined that Oudems was unable to show any actual injury in c o n n e c t io n with his claims and dismissed Oudems' complaint with prejudice as fr iv o lo u s . A lt h o u g h Oudems argues generally that his right to access the courts and r ig h t to due process were violated, he does not specify any claims that he would h a v e raised in a motion for authorization to file a successive motion in this court, n o r does he identify any issue he was prevented from researching. As such, he h a s failed to demonstrate any actual injury in connection with his claims. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-416 (2002). Because Oudems has not raised an issue of arguable merit, his appeal is fr iv o lo u s . See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). As such, it is d is m is s e d . 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court's dismissal of Oudems's action as fr iv o lo u s and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for p u r p o s e s of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5 t h Cir. 1996). Oudems is warned that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant t o Section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed w h ile he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent d a n g e r of serious physical injury. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2