IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30974

Summary Calendar

TYRONNE WELLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CINDY VANNOY, LSP Mail Room Lieutenant,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:10-CV-821

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tyronne Wells, Louisiana prisoner # 397072, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint alleging that Lt. Cindy Vannoy violated his constitutional rights by

rejecting a book that he ordered entitled Pimpology: The 48 Laws of the Game

(hereafter, Pimpology), and that she retaliated against him for filing grievances

and improperly withheld seven other books from him. The district court granted

a motion to dismiss all claims against Vannoy with the exception of Wells’s claim

that the rejection of Pimpology violated Wells’s constitutional rights. The court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2013
No. 12-30974

subsequently granted a motion by Vannoy for summary judgment on the

remaining claims, denied a motion for summary judgment by Wells, and

dismissed Wells’s suit. The court denied Wells’s motion to appeal in forma

pauperis (IFP), certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. 

Wells now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP. By doing so, he

challenges the district court’s certification decision. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Wells challenges only the summary judgment ruling

regarding whether rejection of Pimpology violated his constitutional rights;thus,

he has abandoned any appeal of the earlier order dismissing his other claims

against Vannoy. See Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898, 901 (5th Cir. 2007).

This court’s inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the

appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not

frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal

quotation and citation omitted). In the context of a summary judgment, we

review the court’s ruling de novo, employing the same standard used by the

district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Wells has failed to show that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue. The

district court properly analyzed Wells’s claims pursuant to the factors set forth

in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85-89 (1987), which are (1) whether there is a

rational relationship between the prison regulation and the legitimate

governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether the inmate has an

available alternative means of exercising the rights; (3) the impact of

accommodation on other inmates, guards, and allocation of prison resources; and

(4) the presence or absence of easy and obvious alternative means to

accommodate the right. See Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 214

(5th Cir. 2012). 

Wells does not argue that the regulation at issue is invalid, rather, he

contends that Vannoy’s application of it violated his constitutional rights. 

Vannoy rejected Pimpology because it describes techniques of manipulation and

2

 Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2013
No. 12-30974

control, techniques that prison officials have deemed a potential threat to safety. 

Although Wells disputes Vannoy’s interpretation of the book, we give deference

to determinations by prison officials. See Prison Legal News, 683 F.3d at 216,

222. Wells’s contention that other books available in prison contain similar

information as well as other information that might be dangerous is not enough

to show that Vannoy acted irrationally or arbitrarily. See id. at 216, 222. The

rejection of Pimpology was rationally related to a legitimate penological interest

in maintaining security. See id. at 215-16; Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,

415 (1989). 

With respectto the second Turner factor, Vannoy’s restriction ofPimpology

does not prevent Wells from ordering other books that would be permissible

under prison regulations. Thus, Wells has not shown that he lacks adequate

alternative means of exercising his rights. See Abbott, 490 U.S. at 417-18; Prison

Legal News, 683 F.3d at 218. We also conclude that the third Turner factor–the

impact of accommodating the right–is satisfied in this case. See Prison Legal

News, 683 F.3d at 219. Finally, Wells offers no argument and points to no

evidence that the prison can easily accommodate his request with a de minimis

cost to the valid penological interest in security. Thus, this factor weighs in

Vannoy’s favor. See id. at 218. We reject as conclusional Vannoy’s due process,

equal protection, and Eighth Amendment arguments. 

In light of the foregoing, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and Vannoy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV.

P. 56(c). It follows that Wells has failed to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, we DENY his motion to proceed IFP, and we DISMISS his

appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We

also DENY his motion for appointment of counsel.

The dismissal of Wells’s appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes

of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Wells is CAUTIONED that once he

3

 Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2013
No. 12-30974

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

4

 Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2013