Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40126 Su m m ar y Cal endar

J AM S EY BEL LE P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t v. JAN E STR AN G E; J O H N TO D D ; SM I TH CO U N TYD EP U TYSH ER I FFS; IN T E R N A L A F F A IR S D E P A R T M E N T , S m i th C ou n ty S h erif f’ s D ep a rtm en t; J A N E D O E , S erg ea n t, S m i th C ou n ty S h erif f’ s D ep a rtm en t D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 363

B e fo r e G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , a n dO W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * J a m seyB ell e (“B ell e”) a p p ea l s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa l , pu rsu a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ), o f h is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . H e a ls o m o v e s to s u p p le m e n t h is br i e f w i t h ade c l ar at i o n o f fac t s per t ai ni ng t o t he t i m i ng o f o ne o f hi s s ubm i s s i o ns to the distri ct cou rt. F or th e rea son s set forth b elow , w e d en y B ell e’ s m oti on to sup pl em en tas m ootan d aff i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s c ase. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

11, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40126

The suit was ori ginallyfiled a gainst theSmith CountyJail and two n amed sergeants 1 for the wrong itself, and again st unn amed Smith County sheriff’s deputies and theSm ith County“InternalAffairs Department” for their alleged failure to investigate the loss. The secon d ame nded complaint cont ain s onlythe allegation that aJane Doe serge antwithhel d Belle’s person al possession s. The defen dant s did not enter an appearance b elow and did not fileanopp os itionb rief inthisapp eal. 2 F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS B el l e, a Texas i nm at e pr oc ee di ng pro se and in for m ap a u p er is , file da civ il
r i ght s l awsui t i n w hi c h he al l e ge d t hat a Sm i t h Count y s he r i f f ’ s depa rt m e nt
se r geantvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtof acc es s t o t he c our t s w hen she w i t hhel d a bag
c o nt ai ni ng Bel l e ’ s pe r s o nalpos s e s s i o ns . Am o ng t he po s s e s s i o ns w i t hhe l d, 1 st ol en , or l ost— B e ll e’ s al l egati on s evolved du ri n g t h e l i t i gati on — w ere c ou rt
recor ds an d l egal w ork rel ated t o hi s co n vi ct i on f or posses si on of

a contr ol l ed subs t ance . I ti s uncl earf r om B el l e’ s pl ea d i ngs pre c i se l y w hatr ec or ds orl egal
w o rk h e los t. H e d e sc rib e d th e m in h is first am e n d e d co m p la in t a s “ju rysh e e t[] tran scripts” an dass erted th a t th ey“co n tain ed fac ts [on ] w h i ch h e w ou l drely to
s upp o r thi s ha be as c l ai m s . ” Ear l i e r , he ha d a l l e ge d t hatt he b agc o nt ai ne d,
a m o n go t h e rit e m s , “ le g a l w o r k , c o u r tr e c o r d s , m o t io n , [a n d ] c o p y ’s [s ic ] o f l e t t e r ’s [ si c] f rom att orneys, ” i n cl u di n g recor ds rel ated t o a p o sses si on of a contr ol l ed
s u b s ta n c e co n v ic tio n th a t B e lle w a s a p p e a lin g . T h e i nj u r y B e lle a lle g e da ls o e v o lv e da s th e litig a tio n p r o g r e s s e d
. H is
com pl ai n tf

i rstexpl ai n ed that he n eeded t h e court recor ds t o rai se “ keypoi n t s” i n an oralargu m en tbef ore t h e st ate appell ate c ou rt
. B el l e’ s l aterfi l i n gs do n ot rel y on t h i s i nj u ry; i n fact , B el l e w as rep resented by court- ap poi n t ed coun selon h i s ap p ea lof th e p oss ess i on con victi on . H e al so w rote a l etter to the m a gistrate t o w h om t h i s c ase w as assi gn ed i n w h i ch he cl ai m ed t h at h e w as i nj u red becau se h is w ife d iv o r c e d h i m w h ile h e w a s in c a r c e r a te d
. T h a t h a r m w a s o b v io u s ly
unr e l at e d t o t he a l l e ge d r i ght s v i o l at i o n, a nd Be l l e di d no tr e l y o n i ti n hi s s e c o nd
a m e n d e dco m p la in t. H e fin a llys e tt le do n th e a lle g a ti o n , s t a t e din b o th in h isN o. 09- 40126

Section 191 5A(b)(1) allows district courts to di smiss certain prisoner complaints that 2 are “frivolou s, maliciou s, or [that] fail [] to state a clai m upon whichrelief maybegranted.” Assuming

th at the district court erre d in not consi derin g the obj ections, the error was 3 harmless. Belle’s obj ections di d not raise any new contention or fact not raise d inhis previous filin gs. Braxtonv . E

stel le , 64 1 F .2d 3 92, 397 (5th Cir. 198 1) (finding harmless error when the unco n si dere d obj ection s didnotr ais e anewf actu al di sp utean d the di strictc ourtc ould“a sse ss the merits of the petition of the petition from its face” (quotation omitte d)). And as expl ained b elow , de nov oreview shows that B elle’s actionwas properly dismissed. 3 fir s t a n ds e c o n da m e n d e dco m p la in ts , th a t t h e lo s s o f th e d o c u m e n ts im p e d e d h is abil i t y t o f

i l e an ef

fect ive pro seha beas peti t i on rel ated t o hi s posses si on c o n v ic tio n . T h e s ta t e h a b e a s p e tit io n , w h ic h B e lle s u c c e s s fu llys u b m itt e d in Sept em ber2008, as se r t ed a num berof g rou nds f

orr el i ef, i ncl udi ng i nef fec t ive a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l a n da n in c o r r e c t e v id e n tia r yru lin g . Bel l e ’ s fe de r al§ 1 983 cl ai m w as a s s i gne d t o a m ag i s t r at e j udg e . The
m ag i s t r at e pr o vi de d Be l l e w i t h g ui da nc e o n t he r e qui r e m e nt s o f a “ m e ani ngf ul
ac c e s s t o t he c o ur t s ” c l ai m a nd al l o w e d hi m t o a m e nd h i s c o m pl ai ntt w i c e . The
m agis t rat e al so c on si dered the l et t er B el l e subm i t t ed ab ou thi s divorce. A f t er givi n g B el l e n u m erous opp ort u n i t i es to exp l ai n w h at h e w as cl ai m i n g an d h ow h e w a s i nj u red , the m a gistrate re com m en d ed dism i ssingthe cas e, p u rsu a n t t o 28 U
. S. C. § 1 91 5A(b) ( 1) , f o rBel l e ’ s fai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m and f o rt he f r ivo l o us nat ur e o f

the s ui t
. Bel l e f i l e d at i m e l y o bj e c t i o n t o t he r e po r ta nd 2
r e c o m m e nda t i o n. The di s t r i c t c o ur t ap pe ar s t o hav e o ve r l o o ke d t hi s o bj e c t i o n. It a d op ted the rep ort an d r e c om m en d a ti on an ddism i sse dthe cas e w i th pr ej udi c e , no t i ng i n t he o r de ro f di s m i s s alt hatno o bj e c t i o ns ha d b e e n f i l e d. 3 B e lle a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is ca s e . H e a ls o m o v e s th is c o u r t to c o n s id e r a d e c la r a tio n o f fa c ts s h o w in gth a t h is
a c c e s s to th e m a ils w a s lim ite din la te D e c e m b e r2 0 0 8

— p r io rto th e tim e th a t h is second a m en ded com pl ai n tan d h i s obj ect ion to a reportan d recom m en da t i on w e r e due
. H e appe ar s t o be l i e ve t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tr e c e ive hi s s e c o nd
am en ded com pl ai n tw i t h i n t h e t i m e set by the m agis t rat e. B el l e, how ever, f i l edN o. 09- 40126

4 t h e d o c u m e n to n t i m e , a n dth e c o u r tr e c e iv e ditb e fo r e th e d e a d li n e . B e ll e ’s ob j ection to t h e rep ort an dreco m m en d a ti on w a s also ti m ely fil ed
. B eca u se b oth subm i ss i ons w er e f

i l ed w i t hi n t he deadl i ne setby t he m agi st r at e, pr obl em s t hat Bel l e m ayha ve enco unt e r e d wi t h t he pr i s o n m ai lr o o m do no ta f fe c tt he
s u b s ta n c e o f th is a p p e a l, a n dw e d e n yB e lle ’ s m o tio n to s u p p le m e n t a s m o o t. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e r e v i e w d e novo t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a c o m p l a i n t u n d e r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 1 5 A. G eiger v. Jow ers , 404 F
. 3d 371 , 373 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)
. To stat e a cl ai m up on w h i ch reli ef m a y b e g ra n ted , “t h e p l a i n ti ff m u st p l ea d en ou gh facts to state a clai m to reli ef th a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” SeeIn reK at r i na CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F. 3 d1 9 1 , 2 0 5 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 00 7) ( i n t e r n a lq u o t a t i o n s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )
. “ [A] p la in tiff

’ s o b li g a tion to p ro v id e th e ‘ g ro u n d s’ o f h is ‘ e n title[m e n t] to r e li e f’
r e qui r e s m o r e t han l ab e l s a nd c o nc l us i o ns , a nd af o r m ul ai c r e c i t at i o n o f t he elem en ts o f a ca u se of a cti on w i l ln ot d o.” B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 5 50 U
. S. 544 , 555 ( 200 7) (i n t erna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed). I n ef fect , “ [f ] act u alal l egati on s m u st b e en ou gh to raise a rig h t t o reli ef ab ov e th e sp ecu l a tive l ev el. ” I d. ; seealso Ash c r of tv. I qb al , 129 S. C t
. 193 7, 194 9- 50 (2009). W h i l e pro secom pl ai n t s are h el d to l ess st ri n gen tst an da rds t h an t h ose draf te d byl aw yers, “ concl u sory al l egati on s orl egal concl u si on s m asqu eradi n ga s fact u alconcl u si on s w i l lnot p rev en t a m oti on to dism i ss. ” T aylorv. B ooks A Mi l l i on , I n c. , 296 F. 3d 376, 378 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). DI S CU S S I ON Th e Const i t ut i on r equi r es t he s t at es t o a ss ure t h atpr i so ner s have “m ea n i n gfu lacce s s t o th e cou rts. ” B o u n d s v . S m ith , 4 3 0 U .S
. 8 1 7 , 8 2 4 (19 7 7 ). Bounds , how eve r , doe s not al l ow c l ai m s f or m er el y t heor et i c al or p otent i al vi ol ati on s of

a ri gh tof

acces s t o t h e court s; to p rove a vi ol ati on , a l i t i gan tm u st dem ons t r at e t hatt he al l ege d l ac k of ac c es s “ hi nder ed hi s ef f or t s t o purs ue a l egal cl a i m . ” L ew is v
. C a sey , 518 U
. S
. 343 , 351 ( 199 6)
. Th e L ew is c o ur tl i m i t e d t heN o. 09- 40126

5 ho l di ng i n Bounds b y di s c l ai m i ng s t atem e nt s i n t hatc as e s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he st ate “m u sten able t h e pri soner t o d i scove r gri evan ces, an d to litiga te effec tive ly
on ce in co u rt. ” I

d. ( e m p h a se s i n ori gi n al)
. I n a subseq u en tcase, t h e C ou rt
s ta te dth a t a n “a c c e s s to th e co u r ts ” c la im m u s t id e n tifya “‘n o n fr iv o lo u s ,’

‘ a rg u a b l e’u n d erlyingcl a i m . ” C h ri st oph er v. Harbu ry , 536 U
. S. 403, 415 ( 2002) ( quot i ng L ew is , 5 1 8 U .S . a t 3 5 3 & n .3 ). B el l e contends that hi s abi l i t y t o bri n g a h abea s p et i t i on w as l i m i t ed w h en h i s propert y bag , w h i ch i n cl u ded som e l egal m ater i al s, w as l ost , m i spl aced, or s t o l e n by s o m e o ne i n t he she r i f f ’ s dep ar t m e nt
. Thou gh t he m ag i s t r at e he ar i ng t he c as e g ave hi m s eve r aloppo r t uniti es t o do s o, B el l e di d nots et t l e o n an expl anat i on o f

w hathe l os t
. H e f i rstdes c r ibed t he m at er i al s i n ques t i on as u n speci f

i ed l egal w ork, un i den t i f i ed court recor ds, a m ot i on , an d copi es of l et t ers f r om hi s at t or neys . H e di d not expl ai n how any of t hes e m at er i al s w er e c r uci al to h is a b ilityto s u b m it a n a s - y e t-u n w r itt e n h a b e a s p e tit io n , n o rd idh e cla im t hata ny o f

t he m at e r i al s w e r e i r r e pl ac e ab l e . Bel l e l at e ra m e nde d hi s c o m pl ai nt
an d st ated t h at he l ost“j u ry sheet[] t ran scr i pts” t h at c on t ai n ed fact s he n eeded t o s upporthi s habeas c l ai m s. I ti s again n otc l earw hatm at er i al s B el l e w as r e fe r r in gto o rh o w th e yw o u ld h a v e s u p p o r t e dh i s h a b e a s p e t it io n . B e ll e ’s al l egat i ons ar e no m or e t han l egalc onc l usi ons c ouc hed as fac t s; he di d notpl ead fa c ts th a t a llo w e d th e d is tr ic t co u r t to fin dh is a c tio n p la u s ib le o n its fa c e . I qb al , 1 2 9 S .C t. a t 1 9 4 9 -5 0
. B e lle a p p ea rs to be l i ev e, b a sed on h i s ex p erien ce w i th an ea rl i er sta te habeas pet i t i on, t hats om e fac t s c ont ai ned i n t he l os tl egalm at er i al s w oul d have
m ad e hi s fort hc o m i ng hab e as pe t i t i o n m o r e c o nvi nc i ng. As a n e xa m pl e o f t he h a rm th a t h e beli ev ed th e l oss of h i s l eg a l m a terial s cou l dcau se to th e v i a b i l i ty of t hi s ha b ea s pet i t i on, B el l e a t t ac hed t o hi s f i r stam ended c om pl ai nta Texas st ate c ou rt ’ s f

i n di n gs of

factan d su ggested con cl u si on s of l aw on the earl i er hab e as pe t i t i o n. The s t at e c o ur tno t e d t hatBel l e ’ s “ s w o r n a l l e ga t i o ns a r e a l o neN o. 09- 40126

6 in s u ffic ie n t t o m e e t h is b u r d e n to a lle g e fa c ts w h ic h , if tr u e , w o u ld e n tit le h im to reli ef. ” B el l e a ppear s t o b el i eve t hathe d i d n ots ucc ee d on hi s ear l i erhabeas pe t i t i o n b e c aus e he di d notpr o vi de suf f i c i e ntfac t ualsup po r tfo rhi s c l ai m s , a nd t h at t h e sam e fat e w i l lb efal lh i s n ew h abea s p et i t i on rega rdi n g t h e possess i on convic t i on : i ti s “ possibl e, ” B el l e cl ai m s, t h at t h e petit i on “ coul d h ave been presented” i n a m ore ef fect ive m an n er if

he h a d n o t been dep rived of court
r e c o r d s fr o m w h ic h h e co u ldh a v e d r a w n p e r s u a s iv e e v id e n c e . B e l l e ’ s s p e c u l a t i o n s a b o u tt h e p o s s ib i l i t yt h a th e d i dn o tp r e s e n th i s c l a i ms as ef fec t ively as he c oul d, w hi c h m ay po ss ibl y l ead t o t he deni alof hi s habeas pet i t i on, ar e i nsuf

f i c i entt o s how t h e pre di c at e har m r equi r ed by Casey a nd Harbu ry . B e lle d idn o t id e n t i f yh o w th e lo s s o f a n ys in g le ite m fr o m h is
c o lle c tio n o f le g a l m a te r ia ls p r e v e n te dh im fr o m p e r s u a s iv e lye x p la in in g , in h is h a b e a s p e tit io n , w h y h e s h o u ld b e g r a n te dh a b e a s re lie f. Casey a nd Harbu ry requ i re a pl au sibl e conn e ct i on betw een t h e w rong com m i t t ed an d the i nj u ry s uf fe r e d. Bel l e , de spi t e r e pe at e d o ppo r t uni t i e s t o do s o , di d no ts ho w s uc h a
c o nne c t i o n. M o s t im p o r ta n tly , th o u g h , B e lle a p p e a r s to h a v e h a dn o tr o u b le sub m i t t i n g a vol u m i n ou s h a b e a s peti t i on t o st ate c ou rt
. Th e peti t i on , w h i ch B e lle a tt a c h e dto h is fir s t a m e n d e dco m p la in t, d o e s n o t m e n tio n th a t ce r ta in fact s c ou l d n otbe rec al l ed or coul d not be recoun t ed i n detai lbecau se he l acked
ac c e s s t o s o m e l e ga lm at e r i al s . H e f i l e d w i t h t he s t at e c o ur t , a l o ng w i t h a c o py of t he s t at e- pro vi ded “A ppl i c at i on f ora W r i t of H abeas C or pus” f or m , a 13

- page m e m o r a n d u m o f la w re p le te w ith cit a tio n s t o s ta te a n dfe d e r a l ca s e s , a p r a cti ti on er’ s h a n d b oo k on ev i d en ce, a n dthe T ex a s cri m i n a lcod e. B elle
c o m pl et e l y f

i l l e d o utt he s t at e - pr o vi de d Appl i c at i o n, i n whi c h, a s di r e c t e d, he
s ta te d c o n c is e ly th e le g a l g r o u n d s s u p p o r tin g h is p e tit io n a n d b r i e f ly
s um m ar i z e d t he fac t s s upp o r t i ng e ac h g r o und f o rr e l i e f
. H e s i gne d b o t h t heN o. 09- 40126

7 Appl i c at i o n a nd t he m e m o r and um of l aw on Se pt e m be r2 0, 2 00 8— af t e rf i l i ng s u it in fe d e r a l co u r t. Itis a p p a r e n t t h a t B e lle h a d u n im p e d e d a c c e s s to th e T e x a s c o u r ts
. Itis
a ls o a p p a r e n t fro m th e fa c e o f h is h a b e a s p e tit io n , a s w e ll a s fr o m h is filin g s in th e cou rt bel ow , t hatB el l e had ac c es s t o al aw l ibr ar y. An y l os s of l egal
m at er i al s i n 2007 di d notpr eve nthi m f r om f i l i ng t he habeas pet i t i on i n 2008. Bel l e w as a bl e t o s ubm i ta c o m pl e t e pe t i t i o n t hatf ul l y c o m pl i e d wi t h t he gu i del i n es s etout i n t h e st ate- provi ded A pp l i cat i on . T h e m ater i al s he att ach ed t o hi s am en ded com pl ai n tm ak e i tcl ear t h at w h atever setback B el l e suf fered
w h e n h is le g a l m a te r ia ls w e r e m is p la c e dd idn o t im p e d e h is a b ili t y t o p u t h is h a b e a s cla im s b e fo r e th e T e x a s co u r ts
. S ev era lu n p u b l i sh ed de ci sion s i n this ci rcu i t de a l t w i th an a l og ou s fa cts andf o und no c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n. I n L i t t let on v. G ri m es , t h e courtaf f i rm ed t h e d i sm i ssalof a den i al

- of

- access cl ai m i n w h i ch a p ri soner’ s l egal pa pers w ere c o nf i s c at e d b ut , de s pi t e t he c o nf i s c at i o n, t he pr i s o ne r“ w as abl e t o pr e pa r e a nd t i m el y s ubm i ta l engt hy and t hor ough C O A appl i c at i on. ” 286 F. A pp’ x 887, 888 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)
. I n G r ay v . Wi l l i a ms , a p ri soner al l eged tha th i s w arden ’ s fai l u re to re tu r n ce r ta in d o c u m e n ts a tt a c h e dto a n a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p e a l d e n ie dh im
a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts
. T h e co u r t a ffir m e dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s reje c tio n o f th is t heor y be c ause t he w ar den’ s ac t i ons di d notpr eve ntt he pr i so nerf r om f i l i ng a r e la te dciv il a c tio n a n da p p e a l. 3 1 F
. A p p ’ x 1 5 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); s e eals o Mann v . S m ith , 7 96 F. 2d7 9, 8 4 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 6) (r ej e c t i ng a r i ght

- o f

- ac c e s s a r gum e nt
w h ere t h e pri soner “ i n factf i l ed a d et ai l ed civi lcom pl ai n t
. ” )
. Like t h e pri soners i n G ray and L i t t let on , Bel l e w as a bl e t o f i l e hi s ha be as pe t i t i o n de s pi t e t he
a lle g e ds e tb a c k o f lo s in gs o m e le g a l m a te r ia l re la te dto it. I n shor t , B el l e’ s as se r t i on t hata s t at e a gentcause d t he l os s of i t em s t hat he s urm i se s m i ghthave bee n hel pf ult o hi s habeas pet i t i on does nots t at e a n “a c c e s s to th e co u r ts ” c la im
. B e lle ’ s o w n s u b m is s io n s s h o w th a t h e e njo y e d fu llN o. 09- 40126

8 ac c es s t o t he Texas c our t s and t hathe w as abl e t o su b m i t a c om pl et e habe as p e tit io n co n ta in in ga ll o f th e g r o u n d s fo rre lie f h e cla im s to h a v e h a d
. CO NC L US I ON T h e j u d gm en t of

the distri ct cou rt i s A F F IR M E D
. B ell e’ s m oti on to
a tt a c h a d e c la r a tio n o f fa c ts to h is b r ie f is D E N IE D a s m o o t.