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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40126

Summary Calendar

JAMSEY BELLE

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

JANE STRANGE; JOHN TODD; SMITH COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS;

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, Smith County Sheriff’s Department;

JANE DOE, Sergeant, Smith County Sheriff’s Department

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CV-363

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamsey Belle (“Belle”) appeals the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), of his § 1983 action. He also moves to supplement his

brief with a declaration of facts pertaining to the timing of one of his submissions

to the district court. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Belle’s motion to

supplement as moot and affirm the district court’s dismissal of his case.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40126

 The suit was originally filed against the Smith County Jail and two named sergeants 1

for the wrong itself, and against unnamed Smith County sheriff’s deputies and the Smith

County “Internal Affairs Department” for their alleged failure to investigate the loss. The

second amended complaint contains only the allegation that a Jane Doe sergeant withheld

Belle’s personal possessions. The defendants did not enter an appearance below and did not

file an opposition brief in this appeal. 

2

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Belle, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil

rights lawsuit in which he alleged that a Smith County sheriff’s department

sergeant violated his right of access to the courts when she withheld a bag

containing Belle’s personal possessions. Among the possessions withheld, 1

stolen, or lost—Belle’s allegations evolved during the litigation—were court

records and legal work related to his conviction for possession of a controlled

substance. It is unclear from Belle’s pleadings precisely what records or legal

work he lost. He described them in his first amended complaint as “jury sheet[]

transcripts” and asserted that they “contained facts [on] which he would rely to

support his habeas claims.” Earlier, he had alleged that the bag contained,

among other items, “legal work, court records, motion, [and] copy’s [sic] of letter’s

[sic] from attorneys,” including records related to a possession of a controlled

substance conviction that Belle was appealing. 

The injury Belle alleged also evolved as the litigation progressed. His

complaint first explained that he needed the court records to raise “key points”

in an oral argument before the state appellate court. Belle’s later filings do not

rely on this injury; in fact, Belle was represented by court-appointed counsel on

his appeal of the possession conviction. He also wrote a letter to the magistrate

to whom this case was assigned in which he claimed that he was injured because

his wife divorced him while he was incarcerated. That harm was obviously

unrelated to the alleged rights violation, and Belle did not rely on it in his second

amended complaint. He finally settled on the allegation, stated in both in his
No. 09-40126

 Section 1915A(b)(1) allows district courts to dismiss certain prisoner complaints that 2

are “frivolous, malicious, or [that] fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 

 Assuming that the district court erred in not considering the objections, the error was 3

harmless. Belle’s objections did not raise any new contention or fact not raised in his previous

filings. Braxton v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding harmless error when the

unconsidered objections did not raise a new factual dispute and the district court could “assess

the merits of the petition of the petition from its face” (quotation omitted)). And as explained

below, de novo review shows that Belle’s action was properly dismissed.

3

first and second amended complaints, that the loss of the documents impeded his

ability to file an effective pro se habeas petition related to his possession

conviction. The state habeas petition, which Belle successfully submitted in

September 2008, asserted a number of grounds for relief, including ineffective

assistance of counsel and an incorrect evidentiary ruling. 

Belle’s federal § 1983 claim was assigned to a magistrate judge. The

magistrate provided Belle with guidance on the requirements of a “meaningful

access to the courts” claim and allowed him to amend his complaint twice. The

magistrate also considered the letter Belle submitted about his divorce. After

giving Belle numerous opportunities to explain what he was claiming and how

he was injured, the magistrate recommended dismissing the case, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for Belle’s failure to state a claim and for the frivolous

nature of the suit. Belle filed a timely objection to the report and 2

recommendation. The district court appears to have overlooked this objection.

It adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the case with

prejudice, noting in the order of dismissal that no objections had been filed.3

Belle appeals the dismissal of his case. 

He also moves this court to consider a declaration of facts showing that his

access to the mails was limited in late December 2008—prior to the time that his

second amended complaint and his objection to a report and recommendation

were due. He appears to believe that the district court did not receive his second

amended complaint within the time set by the magistrate. Belle, however, filed
No. 09-40126

4

the document on time, and the court received it before the deadline. Belle’s

objection to the report and recommendation was also timely filed. Because both

submissions were filed within the deadline set by the magistrate, problems that

Belle may have encountered with the prison mail room do not affect the

substance of this appeal, and we deny Belle’s motion to supplement as moot. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). To state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, “the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495

F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “[A]

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). In effect, “[f]actual allegations must

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.; see also

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). While pro se complaints are

held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, “conclusory

allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not

prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378

(5th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). 

DISCUSSION

The Constitution requires the states to assure that prisoners have

“meaningful access to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824 (1977).

Bounds, however, does not allow claims for merely theoretical or potential

violations of a right of access to the courts; to prove a violation, a litigant must

demonstrate that the alleged lack of access “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal

claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). The Lewis court limited the
No. 09-40126

5

holding in Bounds by disclaiming statements in that case suggesting that the

state “must enable the prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively

once in court.” Id. (emphases in original). In a subsequent case, the Court

stated that an “access to the courts” claim must identify a “‘nonfrivolous,’

‘arguable’ underlying claim.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)

(quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3). 

Belle contends that his ability to bring a habeas petition was limited when

his property bag, which included some legal materials, was lost, misplaced, or

stolen by someone in the sheriff’s department. Though the magistrate hearing

the case gave him several opportunities to do so, Belle did not settle on an

explanation of what he lost. He first described the materials in question as

unspecified legal work, unidentified court records, a motion, and copies of letters

from his attorneys. He did not explain how any of these materials were crucial

to his ability to submit an as-yet-unwritten habeas petition, nor did he claim

that any of the materials were irreplaceable. Belle later amended his complaint

and stated that he lost “jury sheet[] transcripts” that contained facts he needed

to support his habeas claims. It is again not clear what materials Belle was

referring to or how they would have supported his habeas petition. Belle’s

allegations are no more than legal conclusions couched as facts; he did not plead

facts that allowed the district court to find his action plausible on its face. Iqbal,

129 S.Ct. at 1949-50. 

Belle appears to believe, based on his experience with an earlier state

habeas petition, that some facts contained in the lost legal materials would have

made his forthcoming habeas petition more convincing. As an example of the

harm that he believed the loss of his legal materials could cause to the viability

of this habeas petition, Belle attached to his first amended complaint a Texas

state court’s findings of fact and suggested conclusions of law on the earlier

habeas petition. The state court noted that Belle’s “sworn allegations are alone
No. 09-40126

6

insufficient to meet his burden to allege facts which, if true, would entitle him

to relief.” 

Belle appears to believe that he did not succeed on his earlier habeas

petition because he did not provide sufficient factual support for his claims, and

that the same fate will befall his new habeas petition regarding the possession

conviction: it is “possible,” Belle claims, that the petition “could have been

presented” in a more effective manner if he had not been deprived of court

records from which he could have drawn persuasive evidence. 

Belle’s speculations about the possibility that he did not present his claims

as effectively as he could, which may possibly lead to the denial of his habeas

petition, are insufficient to show the predicate harm required by Casey and

Harbury. Belle did not identify how the loss of any single item from his

collection of legal materials prevented him from persuasively explaining, in his

habeas petition, why he should be granted habeas relief. Casey and Harbury

require a plausible connection between the wrong committed and the injury

suffered. Belle, despite repeated opportunities to do so, did not show such a

connection.

Most importantly, though, Belle appears to have had no trouble

submitting a voluminous habeas petition to state court. The petition, which

Belle attached to his first amended complaint, does not mention that certain

facts could not be recalled or could not be recounted in detail because he lacked

access to some legal materials. He filed with the state court, along with a copy

of the state-provided “Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” form, a 13-page

memorandum of law replete with citations to state and federal cases, a

practitioner’s handbook on evidence, and the Texas criminal code. Belle

completely filled out the state-provided Application, in which, as directed, he

stated concisely the legal grounds supporting his petition and briefly

summarized the facts supporting each ground for relief. He signed both the
No. 09-40126

7

Application and the memorandum of law on September 20, 2008—after filing

suit in federal court. 

It is apparent that Belle had unimpeded access to the Texas courts. It is

also apparent from the face of his habeas petition, as well as from his filings in

the court below, that Belle had access to a law library. Any loss of legal

materials in 2007 did not prevent him from filing the habeas petition in 2008.

Belle was able to submit a complete petition that fully complied with the

guidelines set out in the state-provided Application. The materials he attached

to his amended complaint make it clear that whatever setback Belle suffered

when his legal materials were misplaced did not impede his ability to put his

habeas claims before the Texas courts. 

Several unpublished decisions in this circuit dealt with analogous facts

and found no constitutional violation. In Littleton v. Grimes, the court affirmed

the dismissal of a denial-of-access claim in which a prisoner’s legal papers were

confiscated but, despite the confiscation, the prisoner “was able to prepare and

timely submit a lengthy and thorough COA application.” 286 F. App’x 887, 888

(5th Cir. 2008). In Gray v. Williams, a prisoner alleged that his warden’s failure

to return certain documents attached to an administrative appeal denied him

access to the courts. The court affirmed the district court’s rejection of this

theory because the warden’s actions did not prevent the prisoner from filing a

related civil action and appeal. 31 F. App’x 155 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Mann

v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir. 1986) (rejecting a right-of-access argument

where the prisoner “in fact filed a detailed civil complaint.”). Like the prisoners

in Gray and Littleton, Belle was able to file his habeas petition despite the

alleged setback of losing some legal material related to it. 

In short, Belle’s assertion that a state agent caused the loss of items that

he surmises might have been helpful to his habeas petition does not state an

“access to the courts” claim. Belle’s own submissions show that he enjoyed full
No. 09-40126

8

access to the Texas courts and that he was able to submit a complete habeas

petition containing all of the grounds for relief he claims to have had. 

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Belle’s motion to

attach a declaration of facts to his brief is DENIED as moot.