### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30974 Summary Calendar

TYRONNE WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CINDY VANNOY, LSP Mail Room Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee

A ppeal 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, L ouisiana prisoner # 3 9 7 0 7 2 , filed a 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that Lt. Cindy Vannoy violated his constitut i o n a l rights by reject i n g a b o o k that he ordered entitled Pimpology: The 48 Laws of the Game (hereafter, Pimpology ), and that s he retaliated against h im for filing grievances and improperly withheld seven other books from him. The district court granted

a m otion to d ismiss all claims against Vannoy with the exception of Wells’s claim that the r ejection of P impology violated Wells’s constitutional rights. The court U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2013No. 12-30974

subsequently granted a m o tion by V annoy for summary judgment on the remaining claims, denied a motion for summary j udgment b y W ell s , and dismissed Wells’s suit. T he court denied Wells’ s m o t i o n to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Wel l s n o w m o ves this court for leave to proceed IFP. By d oing so, he challenges the d istrict c ourt’s certification decision. Baugh v. T a y lor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1 997). W ells challenges o n l y the summary judgment ruling

r e g a r d i n g whether rejection of Pimpology violated his cons t i t u t i o n a l r i gh t s ; t h u s , he has a bandoned any appeal of the e arlier order dis m i s sing 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 2 15, 220 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 3 ) ( i nternal quotation and citation omitted). In the c ontext of a s u m m a r y j udgment, we review t he court’s ruling de novo, e mploying the s ame standard u sed 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 p ursuant t o t he factors set forth in Turner v
. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 85-89 (1987), which are (1) whether there is a rational relatio n ship between t he prison r egulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify i t; ( 2 ) whether the inmate has an available alternative means of exercising the r igh t s ; ( 3 ) t he impact of accommodation on other inmates, guards, a nd allocation o f p r i s o n r e s o urces; and (4) the presence or absence of easy and obvi ous alternative means to accommodate the r ight. See Prison Legal News v. Livingston , 683 F.3d 201, 214 (5th Cir. 2012). Wells does not argue that the regulation at i ssue is invalid, rather, he contends that Vannoy’s application of it violated his constitutional rights. Vannoy rejected Pimpology because it d escribes techniques of manipulation and
2 Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2013No. 12-30974

control, t echniques that prison officials have d eemed a potential threat t o safety. Although Wells disputes Vannoy’s interpretation of the book, we give deference to determinations by prison o fficials. See Pris o n L e g a l News , 6 83 F .3d at 216, 222. Wells’s contention that other books availab l e in prison contain similar information as well a s 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 w as rationally related to a legitimate p enological interest in maintaining security. See i d. at 215-16; Thornburgh v. Abbott , 490 U.S. 401, 415 (1989). W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s e cond Turner f actor, Vannoy’s restrict i o n o f Pi m p o l o g y does not prevent W ells f rom ordering other books that would be permis sible

u n d e r p rison regulations. T hus, Wells has not shown that he lacks adequ a t e alternative means of exercising his rights. See A bbott , 490 U .S. at 417-18; Prison Legal News , 683 F .3d at 218. We also conclude that the third T urner factor–the impact of accommodating the right–is satisfied in this case
. See Prison Legal News , 6 8 3 F.3d at 219

. Finally, Wells offers no argument and p oints to no evidence that the prison can easily accommodate his request with a de minimis cost to the valid penological interest in security. Thus, t his f a c t or weighs in Vannoy’s favor. See id. a t 218. We reject as conclusional V annoy’s due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment arguments. In light of the f

oregoing, there is no g enuine d ispute as to a ny material fact and Vannoy was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. S e e F E D

. R. C I V

. P. 56(c). It follows that Wells has failed to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we DENY his motion to p roceed IFP, and we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d a t 202 & n.24; 5 T H C I R

. R. 42.2. We also DENY his motion for appointment of counsel. The dismissal of Wells’s appeal a s frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of t he “ three strikes” b ar under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Se e Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F .3d 3 83, 387- 8 8 ( 5th Cir. 1 996). Wells is CAUTIONED that once he
3 Case: 12-30974 Document: 00512214774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2013No. 12-30974

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in a n y f a c ility 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