IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT_____________________
No. 92-8531(Summary Calendar)_____________________
Troy Eugene Wigley,
Plaintiff-Appellant,v.
Raul Mata, Captain andLuis Ramos,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
W 92 CV 61_________________________________________________________________
June 9, 1993
Before KING, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Troy Wigley, an
inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division (TDCJ), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
challenging the constitutionality of certain disciplinary
hearings conducted by TDCJ employees Raul Mata and Luis Ramos.
Wigley sought monetary damages as well as declaratory and*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particularcases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determinedthat this opinion should not be published.

injunctive relief.1

After conducting a Spears2 hearing, at which

Wigley stated that he was suing Mata and Ramos only in theirofficial capacities as TDCJ disciplinary officers, a magistrate
recommended dismissing the action as frivolous and imposing
sanctions.

The district court adopted the magistrate's

recommendation, dismissed the action as frivolous, imposedmonetary sanctions of $100, and directed the Clerk's office notto accept any further civil filings from Wigley until themonetary sanction is paid unless Wigley first obtains leave to
file the action from a district or magistrate judge.
On September 30, 1992, Wigley filed a notice of appeal.
Apparently after reconsidering his position, Wigley has now
requested that we dismiss his appeal because he "is of the beliefthat any grounds mentioned therein for grounds of reversal will
be meritless and frivolous."

Without expressing any opinion withrespect to Wigley's assessment of the arguments he has raised on
appeal, we grant his motion to dismiss the appeal.
We note, however, that Wigley is no stranger to this court.
In five prior actions, Wigley sought unsuccessfully to sue
various TDCJ officials and even TDCJ units under § 1983.

In eachinstance, Wigley's action was dismissed on Eleventh Amendment
grounds either because Wigley had sued a state agency or because
1Specifically, Wigley sought a court order instructing theDefendants to remove from his record the allegedly
unconstitutional disciplinary report and remove the "hold" that
had been placed on his trust fund account.
2See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir.

1985).
2

he insisted that he was suing TDCJ officials only in theirofficial capacities.

In each instance, this court dismissed

Wigley's appeal as frivolous.3

This court also warned Wigley,

in the four most recent of these decisions that "if he continues
to insist on proceeding in a § 1983 action against defendants intheir official capacities only, this court may assess monetary
sanctions and may refuse to allow him to file any further appeal[in forma pauperis] unless the district court has certified thatthe appeal is taken in good faith."

Our warning undoubtedly

played some part in the district court's decision to sanction
Wigley, and, perhaps, in Wigley's decision to voluntarily dismiss
his appeal.

We therefore refrain from assessing additionalsanctions.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the Appellant to dismiss
this appeal is GRANTED.

Accordingly, Wigley's appeal isDISMISSED.

3

See Wigley v. Smith, No. 92-8400 (5th Cir. Nov. 9, 1992)(unpublished opinion); Wigley v. Alfred Hughes Unit, No. 92-8359(5th Cir. Nov. 9, 1992) (unpublished opinion); Wigley v. Lynaugh,
No. 92-4011 (Aug. 19, 1992) (unpublished opinion); Wigley v.
Alfred Hughes Unit, No. 92-8344 (Aug. 18, 1992) (unpublishedopinion); Wigley v. Cox, No. 90-4865 (5th Cir. May 22, 1991)(unpublished opinion).
3