Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-98-40724/USCOURTS-ca5-98-40724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 98-40724 

 Summary Calendar 

 

 ARTHUR J. THOMPSON, JR., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 VERSUS 

 WAYNE SCOTT, 

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division; 

DAN MORALES, Attorney General; TIMOTHY WEST, Warden; 

JACK MANGRUM, Captain; KEITH GORSUCH; 

JOHN ALLEN, Lieutenant; BILLYE FORREST, Lieutenant; 

BRYAN SEWELL, Correctional Officer; 

JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer; JANE DOE, Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, Director 

of Health Administration, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

 - - - - - - - - - - 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Texas 

 (1:95-CV-1024) 

 - - - - - - - - - - 

 June 4, 1999 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Arthur Thompson, Jr., a state prisoner, appeals an order dismissing his civil 

rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We dismiss 

the appeal as frivolous. 

 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and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: 98-40724 Document: 18 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/1999
2 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a prisoner’s civil rights action may 

be dismissed as frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Siglar 

v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 

25, 32-33 (1992). We review for abuse of discretion. Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. 

 Thompson challenges the dismissals of his excessive force, denial of access to 

the courts, denial of medical care, inadequate diet, and free exercise claims. 

Each claim is insufficient. 

 Regarding his excessive force claim, Thompson must “establish that force 

was not 'applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, [but] 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,' and that he suffered an injury.” 

Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 601-02 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (alteration in original)). Thompson’s factual allegations 

fail to establish this, but rather reflect that minimal force was used in an effort 

to restore order. The district court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion 

in dismissing this claim as legally frivolous. 

 Regarding his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, Thompson has failed to 

indicate how he was prejudiced by the confiscation of his legal papers. See Henthorn 

v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992). Regarding his assertions of denial 

of medical care and inadequate diet, Thompson does not provide any argument in 

support of this issue and does not identify the purportedly unresolved factual 

issue(s). Accordingly, he has failed to show that the district court abused its 

discretion in dismissing this claim as frivolous. 

 Regarding his free exercise claim, Thompson contends that he was ordered 

to stop his “fasting prayer,” in violation of the First Amendment. Although 

reasonable opportunities must be afforded to prisoners to exercise the religious 

Case: 98-40724 Document: 18 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/1999
3 

freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Pedraza v. Meyer, 919 

F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1990), Thompson’s conclusional argument fails to demonstrate 

either that a practice of his religion was infringed upon, or that any such 

infringement was unreasonable. 

 The preceding demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Because this appeal is also 

frivolous, it too is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th 

Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Because Thompson has already been warned that the 

filing of a frivolous appeal would invite the imposition of a sanction, see Thompson 

v. Morales, No. 98-40723 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 1999), we accordingly BAR Thompson

from filing any future pro se pleading or appeal in any court subject 

to our 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 

Thompson, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this 

bar. To obtain such permission, Thompson must send a letter, 

requesting such permission and attaching copies of the proposed filing 

and this order to the clerk of this court. 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED. 

Case: 98-40724 Document: 18 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/1999