FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 13, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1432 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0058 2- CV -J -3 2 W ILLIAM D. W ILLIAMS, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, I n d i v i du a l l y an d

o f f i c i a l l y, BILL BEDINFIELD, et a l., I n d i v i du a l l y an d

o f f i c i a l l y, D ef en dant- Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 13, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

W illiam D. W illiam s, a Florida prisoner, a ppeals a district court order dism issin g his pro se 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 civil rights action, pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 191 5(e)( 2)(B) (i), as fr ivolo us. Be cause the district court properly concluded that (1) the prison’ s policyof prohibiti ng W illiam s from rem ovin g his sh oes before entering the prison chapel w as rea sonablyrelate d to the legiti m ate penological obj ec tiv e of

m ai nta ini ng s af

ety and s ec ur ity , and ( 2) W ill iam s f ai le d to nam e any oth er inm at es w ho h ad

be ena llo w ed

to re m ove the ir

sho es pr ior

to en te ri ng the pr iso n c ha

pe l, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

dis m iss ing W illiam s’ s com

plaint. A ccordingly , w e AF FIRM.

I. BACKG ROUND W ill iam s, aF lor ida

pr iso ne r, f

ile d apr o se c ivi l r igh ts a ct ion , pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 and 42 U.S .C. § 2000 bb, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“ RF RA ”) , a ga ins t the S ec re tary f or the D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, both ind ivi dua lly

and i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity , and J am es Cr osby , Bi ll Be din fi el d, De nnis Durant, S gt. Cannady , and Major Highland, in their individual and official ca pa ci tie s, c la im ing that the y vio la te d hi s e qua l pr ote ct ionr igh ts, a s w el l a s hi s ri ght to fr ee ly e xe rc ise his r el igi on, be ca use the y did not a llo whim

to re m ove his sh oe s b efo re en te rin g t he pri so n c hape l.3

W ill iam s a lle ge d th at

w hil e atte ndi ng c ha

pe l se rv ic es a t the pr iso n, S gt. Canna dy inf orm ed him that he m ust w ear shoe s be fo re e nte ri ng the c ha pe l, and, that i f he did

not , he w oul d no t be a llo w ed to co nti nue to part ic ipate in the religious service. W illiam s inform ed Sgt. C annady that: (1) the sanctuary

wa s hol y gr ound that w oul d be de se cr at ed by the w eari ng o f shoe s, ( 2) the r em ova l of shoe s w hil e co nduc tin g r el igi ous ac tiv iti es w as apr ac tic e obse rv ed by m any religious g roups, and (3) it had been his practice to re m ove his sh oes before entering a sanctuary

for eight y ears. In addition, W illiam s stated that God had pe rs ona lly

c om m an de d hi m

to re m ove his sho es be fo re e nte ri ng a sanc tuary , and that this pr ac tic e w as sup porte d by the sc ri pture s. W ill iam s a lle ge d th at de spi te m ak ing kno w n hi s be lie fs , S gt. Canna dy w oul d no t a llo whim

to part ic ipate in re lig iou s a ct ivi tie s w ith out his sho es on, and thus, he de ci de d no t t o r et ur n to the ch ap el . W ill iam s in dic at ed

that he ha d f

ile d an in fo rm al gr ie vanc e w ithMa j or Highland. In r espons e, W illiam s alleged that Maj or Highland stated that he was not aw ar e of any de nom inatio n w hic h r em ove d th ei r shoe s be fo re e nte ri ng the ch ap el and h e the re fo re or de re d W ill iam s to ke ep his sho es on i f he de sir ed to participate in chapel services. Sim ilarly , D urant, the prison chaplain, noting th at W illiam s had annou nced his affiliation with the Baptist denom ination , indicated4

that the re w as no r equir em en t i n th e Ba pti st r el igi on t o r em ove one s’ sho es in the ch ap el . W ar de n B ed inf

ie ld r es pond ed

to W ill iam s’ s gr ie vanc e by inf orm ing W il li am s t ha t t he pri so n re qu ire d a ll in m at es to wear s ho es forsec ur it y reas on s. Insum , W ill iam s a lle ge d th at be ca use the de fe ndants ’ a ct ion s de nie d hi m ac ce ss t o th e ch ap el , and tha t othe r re lig ion s, spe ci fi ca lly Mu sli m s, w er e not subj ec te d to the sam e pr ohi bit ion , the de fe ndants vio la te d th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t, the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t, and the RF RA . F or re lie f, W ill iam s de m an de d c om pe nsator y and p uni tiv e dam ag es of $15 0, 000 fr om ea chde fe ndant, an in

j unc tio n a ga ins t the pr ohi bit ion , and a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, sua

spo nte , dis m iss ed

W ill iam s’ s c om

pla int a s f ri vol ous, pursuant to § 1915 (e)( 2)(B) (i), after finding th at W illiam s had “ little or no chance of success” on a claim

of constitut ional deprivatio n. R1- 14 at 5. T he district court not ed that be ca use the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the RF RAw as unc onst itu tio na l i n Ci ty of Bo er ne s v. F lor es , 521 U . S. 507 , 536 , 117 S . Ct . 215 7, 217 2 ( 1997 ), any cl ai m s r ai se d by

W ill iam s purs uant t o th at A ct w oul d be dis m iss ed . A ddr es sin g W ill iam s’ s c onst itutio na l c la im s, the dis tr ic t c ourt, c iti ng T ur ne r v. S af le y , 482 U. S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254 , 2261 (1987), observed out th at w hen a prison po licy int er fe re s w ithan in m at e’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, the re is no c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n if the pol ic y

is re as ona

bly r el at ed to a le git im at e pe nol ogi ca l i nte re st. Appl y ing5

thi s st an dard

to W ill iam s’ s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at the pr iso n of

fi ci al s, in re spon se to W ill iam s’ s in iti al gr ie vanc e, ind ic at ed that the r em ova l of

garm en ts within a prison becom es a secur ity issue. A lthou gh the defendants di d not file a re spon siv e ple ad ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt a cc ep te d th e se curi ty j ust if ic at ionput

f orth by the de fe ndants in re spon se to W ill iam s’ s gr ie vanc e, and c onc lud ed that the pol ic y of pr ohi bit ing the r em ova l of sho es w as c onne ct ed

to a le git im at e gove rn m en t i nte re st i n m ai nta ini ng s ec ur ity w ith in the pr iso n. A s to the r e a s o n ab l e n e s s o f

th e p r i s o n ’s p o l i c y, th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtr e c o g n i z e dth a tWi l l i a ms ha d ava ila

ble a lte rn at ive m eans o f ex er ci sin g hi s r igh t t o f re el y pr ac tic e his re lig iou s be lie fs . S pe ci fi ca lly , the c ourt ob se rv ed that W ill iam s c oul d r em ove his shoe s inhis c el l and p ray the re w ith out

ne ga tiv el y

a ff ec tin g th e sa fe ty

and s ec ur ity o f t h e o t h eri n m at es , h i m s el f, o r t h e p ri s o n au t h o ri t i es . Wit h re s p ec tt o Wil l i ams’s equa l pr ote ct ionc la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that W ill iam s ha d f

ai le d to es ta bli sh tha t any

oth er inm at es ha d be ena llo w ed to re m ove the ir

sho es pr ior

to entering the chapel. A ccordingly , the district court dism issed the com plaint as fri vo lo us . II. D ISCU SSION On appeal, W illiam s argues that the district court abused its discretion when it dism issed his § 1983 com plaint as frivolou s. S pecifically , W illiam s claim s that6

be ca use the c or

re ct ion al f

ac ili ty a llo w ed inm at es of

the I slam ic or

Mu sli m f ai th t o rem ove their shoes, but prohi bited him , a s a Christian, f rom rem ovin g his sh oes be ca use of se curi ty c onc er ns, the de fe ndants vio la te d th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t and the E qu a l P r o t e c t i o n C l au s e o f th e F o u rt e e n t h A me n d me n t . T h e r e f o r e , Wi l l i a ms as se rt s th at

he ha s de m onstrate d ali ke lih ood of suc ce ss o n hi s c la im

of co nst itu tio na l de pr ivatio n. S im ilarl y , W ill iam s c ont en ds tha t be ca use the de fe ndants f

ile d no r es pons ive ple ad ing s, the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by ac ce pti ng o utr igh t the se curi ty j ust if ic at ionput

f orth b y W ar de n B ed en fi el d inhis response to W illiam s’ s grievance. T hus, W illiam s argues that the district court ab use d it s di sc re tio n w he n it pr em at ur el y dis m iss ed

his c om pla int a s f ri vol ous w ith out r equir ing the de fe ndants to de m onstrate e xa ct ly howthe pr ac tic e of re m ovi ng o ne ’ s sh oe s inpr iso n c re at es ase curi ty r isk . F ina lly , W ill iam s m ai nta ins that the de fe ndants ’ j ust if ic at ionf or the pr ohi bit ionc oul d no t be c onstru ed by the district court as either legitim ate or r easonable because there is no lo gical co nne ct ionbe tw ee n th e pr iso n’ s po lic y of f or bid din g th e re m ova l of

c lothin g ga rm en ts an d m ai nt ai ni ng pri so n s afet y an d s ecu rit y . Inf orm a paupe ri s ( IF P) pr oc ee din gs are gov er ne d by 28 U . S. C. § 19 15. Su bse ct ion( e) (2 ) of

that st at ute pr ovi de s th at

". . . the c ourt sh al l di sm iss the c as e at any ti m e if the c ourt de te rm ine s th at –. . . ( B) the a ct ionor

appe al -- (i ) is7

fr ivo lou s or

m al ic iou s . . . . " 2 8 U . S. C. § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i ). “ [T ] he statut e ac co rd s j udge s no t on ly

the auth or ity

to dis m iss ac la im

ba se d onan in dis put ab ly m er itl es s l eg al th eo ry, b u tal s o th e u n u s u al p o we r t o p i er ce th e v ei l o f t h e c o m p l ai n t ’s fa ct ua l a lle ga tio ns and d ism iss tho se c la im s w hose f ac tua l c ont en tio ns are c le ar ly ba se le ss. ” N ei tz ke v. W ill iam s, 490 U . S. 319 , 327 , 109 S . Ct . 182 7, 183 3, 104 L.Ed.2 d 3 38 (19 89 ). W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a spon te dis m iss al of ac la im a s f ri vol ous unde r § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i ) fo r ab use of dis cr et ion . B ila l v. D ri ve r, 251 F . 3d 1 346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). “ A c laim is frivolous if it is without arguable m erit either in l awor f ac t, ” or ha s li ttl e or

no c hanc e of

suc ce ss. I d. T o th e e x t e n tth a tWi l l i a ms s o u g h tr e l i e f u n d e r th e RF RA , th e S up r e me Co urt he ld tha t the RF RAw as unc onst itu tio na l i n B oe rn es , 521 U . S. a t 53 2- 33, 117 S. Ct . a t 21 70- 71. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by dis m iss ing any

c la im s r ai se d by

W ill iam s purs uant t o th at A ct .

“ Inor de r to p re va il on a

c ivi l r igh ts a ct ionund er

§ 19 83, apla int if

f m ust showthat he or

she w as de pr ive d of

af ed er al r igh t by

ape rs on a ct ing und er

c olo r of st at e la w.” Griff

in v. Ci ty of Opa -Loc ka , 26 1 F .3d12 95 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Im portantl y , inm at es r et ai n th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t gu ar an te e that no lawsha ll pr ohi bit the f re e ex er ci se of

r el igi on, C ru z v. Be to, 405 U . S. 319 , 322 , 92 S . Ct .8

1079 , 108 1- 82 ( 1972 ). U nli ke the str ic t st an dard s of sc ru tiny appl ic ab le to the constitu tional right s of persons in free society , how ever, the Suprem e Court has announ ce d ade fe re nti al r ea sona ble ne ss s tandard

f or de te rm ini ng whe the r a pr iso n re gul at ionvio la te s apr iso ne r’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. S ee T ur ne r, 482 U . S. a t 89 , 10 7 S . Ct. at22 61 . Whe n a sse ssi ng whe the r a pr iso ne r w as de pr ive d of his c onst itu tio na lly protected right to freely

practice his religion , w e have held that the district court m ust first “ determ ine whether the prisoner is sincere in his or her asserted religious b eliefs. ” Mar

tinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499 , 1503 (11th Cir. 1987). I n oth er w or ds, “ [a ] c la im an t m ee ts this ini tia l burd en. . . if he or she pr ove s th at

the beliefs are truly

held and [are] religious in nature. ” Id. at 1504. O nce the district co urt de te rm ine s th at

the pr iso ne r ha s asin ce re f re e- ex er ci se c la im , it

m ust ev al ua te w he the r the pr iso n r eg ulatio n or pol ic y is re as ona

bly r el at ed to a le git im at e pe nol ogi ca l i nte re st. Mc Co rk le v. Joh nson , 881 F . 2d 9 93, 995 -9 6 ( 11th Ci r. 198 9) ( pe r curi am). I t i s im portant t o no te that the r ea sona ble ne ss t es t i s ap pli ed w ithaw ide -r an gin g de fe re nc e to the e xpe rt j udgm en t of

pr iso n adm ini str at or s. S ee Br igh tly v. W ai nw ri ght , 814 F . 2d 6 12, 613 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) (p er cu ria m ).9

Ther e ar e severa l considerations that m ust be taken into account when ex amin i n g th e r ea s o n ab l en es s o f ap ri s o n re g u l at i o n th at i n fr i n g es o n an i n m at e’s pr ote ct ed c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. F ir st, the re m ust be a“ ‘ va lid , r at ion al c onne ct ion ’ betwee n the prison restriction and the legitim ate governm ental interest put forward to justify it.” McCorkle, 881 F.2d at 995 (quot ing Turner, 482 U.S . at 889, 107 S. Ct . a t 22 62 ( int er

na l c itatio n om itt ed )) . S ec ond, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust e xam ine whether “ alternative m eans of exerc ising the asserted right rem ain open.” I d. at 996. “ T he inquir

y is w he the r, und er

the r es tr ic tio ns i m

pose d, the pla int if

f is de pr ive d of

a ll m eans o f pr ac tic ing his ‘ re lig ion . ’ ” Id . ( quot at ionom itt ed ). T hir d, the district court m

ust cons ider the im

pact that accom

m odating “ the asserted co nst itu tio na l r igh t w ill have on g uard s and o the r inm at es , and o n th e al loc at ionof pr iso n r es our ce s ge ne ra lly . ” I d. . F ina lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust de te rm ine

“ whether the regulation represents an ‘ exaggerated re spon se’ to prison concerns.” Hak im v. Hi ck s, 2 23 F.3d12 44 , 12 47 -4 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Inor de r to p ro pe rl y

ple ad an e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im , apla int if f ne ed onl y al le ge that si m ilarl y

sit ua te d pe rs ons have be entr eate d di sparate ly thr oughstate ac tio n. T hig pe n v. Bi bb C ounty , G a. , S he ri ff ’ s D ep t. , 223 F . 3d 1 231, 123 7- 39 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . If th e p la in ti ff i s n ot in a pr ot ect edcla ss , “ we rev ie w . . . dis cr im inator

y tr eatm en t t o se e if

it ha s ar at ion al ba sis . ” Ba ss v . P er ri n, 170 F . 3d10

1312 , 131 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . U nde r ratio na l ba sis r ev ie w , the c ourt i de nti fi es a le git im at e gove rnm en t purp ose and d et er m ine s w he the r a ratio na l ba sis e xis ts f or th e g ov ern m en t t o b el ie ve th atit s ac ti on wou ldfur th er t he go ve rn m en t’s p ur po se . Hell er v . Doe b y

Doe, 5 09 U.S. 31 2, 3 19 -2 0, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 63 7, 2 64 2 (1 99 3) . As an initial m atter, it is im portant to no te that the district court dism issed W ill iam s’ s c om

pla int be fo re the de fe ndants f

ile d any r es pons ive ple ad ing s, and ins te ad r el ie d up on W ar de n B ed en fi el d’ s r es pons e to W ill iam s’ s gr ie vanc e as the basis for its findin g that the com plaint was fr ivolo us. A lthou gh W illiam s takes issue with this ty

pe of sum m ary dispo sition , the plain language of § 1915 (e )( 2) (B )( i) e xpl ic itl y pr ovi de s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to “ dis m iss the c as e a t a n y t i me if the court deter m ines . . . the action . . . is frivolous .” (e m pha sis a dde d) . A lth oughw e have r ec ogni ze d th at , in or de r to m ak e a tr uly inf orm ed de ci sio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt us ua lly r equir es se rv ic e of

pr oc es s and the de fe ndant’ s answ er

be fo re m ak ing ade te rm inatio n a s to f ri vol ousn es s, w e have al so n ote d th at

the re are c om

pe lli ng r ea sons f

or im m ed ia te ly dis m iss ing f

ri vol ous ac tio ns b y

pr iso ne rs , e spe ci al ly

sin ce f ri vol ous sui ts “undu ly

bur de n th e co urts, obsc ur e m er ito ri ous cl ai m s, and r equir e inn oc en t part ie s to e xpe nd s ign if ic an t resources in their defe nse.” Phillips v. Ma shbu rn, 746 F. 2d 78 2, 784-85 (11th Cir. 1984 ) (p er

c ur iam ) (d isc uss ing 28 U . S. C. § 19 15( d) , w hic h is the pr ec ur sor to 2811

U . S. C. § 19 15( e) ). E xte ndi ng the latte r part of thi s r ea soni ng, w e have he ld tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt “ m ay

c onc lud e a ca se ha s li ttl e or no c hanc e of

suc ce ss and d ism iss the c om pla int be fo re se rv ic e of

pr oc es s w he n it

de te rm ine s f

ro m the f ac e of the com plaint th at the fac tual allegations are clear ly baseless or that the legal theories ar e ind isp uta

bly m er itl es s. ” Carr oll v. G ro ss, 984 F . 2d 3 92, 393 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) (p er cu ria m ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly f ound that W ill iam s’ s a lle ga tio ns w er e fr ivo lou s. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r did not spe ci fi ca lly

a ddr es s th e sincerity of W illiam s’ s belief that he w as required to rem ove his sh oes before entering the chapel, it nevertheless appears that the district court presum ed that W ill iam s’ s be lie fs w er e tr uly he ld and r oot ed

in re lig iou s be lie f be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in qui ry

int o th e re as ona

ble ne ss o f the pr iso n r eg ulatio n a t i ssu e he re in w as ne ce ssari ly

pr ed ic at ed

on a f ind ing of sin ce ri ty . T hus, the tr

ue que sti on on this appe al is w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inf

ind ing that the pr iso n’ s po lic y

f or bid din g th e re m ova l of

Whil liam s’ s sh oe s w as r ea sona bly re la te d to ale git im at e pe nol ogi ca l i nte re st. A lth oughW ill iam s arg ue s to the c ontrary , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin fi ndi ng the pr iso n po lic y r ea sona bly r el at ed to a le git im at e pe nol ogi ca l i nte re st. T he re w as r at ion al c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e pr iso n r eg ulatio n12

prohibi ting th e re m oval of W illiam s’ s shoes andthe legitim ate governm ental int er es t of

m ai nta ini ng p ri son sa fe ty and s ec ur ity . A s to the iss ue of reasonableness und er the T urner standard, the district court explicitlynoted that W ill iam ’ s ha d a lte rn at ive m eans o f ex er ci sin g hi s r igh t t o f re el y pr ac tic e his re lig ion , e spe ci al ly

sin ce he ha d th e opt ionof r et ir ing to his c el l and r em ovi ng h is shoes in order to pray . Moreover, the court acknowledged that such an accom m odation would not negativ ely im pact the safety

and security

of the other inm at es , the guard s, or

W ill iam s hi m se lf

. T he c ourt no te d th at

the r eg ulatio n di d not appe ar to be an e xa gge rate d r es pons e to l eg iti m at e pr iso n c onc er ns f or se curi ty . A ft er

takin g th es e fa ct or s in to c onsi de ratio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y co nc lud ed

that the pr iso n’ s po lic y

of pr ohi bit ing W ill iam s f

ro m r em ovi ng h is shoe s w as r ea sona

bly r el at ed to the le git im at e pe nol ogi ca l ob j ec tiv e of m ai nt ai ni ng saf

ety an d s ecu rit y . A ddr es sin g W ill iam s’ s e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso p ro p er l y d i s m i s s edWil l i ams’s co m p l ai n tas fr i v o l o u s . C i t i n g Ma jo r H i g h l an d ’s response to W illiam s’ s grievance, in which H ighlandstated that he wa s unaware of any de nom inatio ns w ith in the pr iso n th at e nga ge d inthe pr ac tic e of r em ovi ng the ir sho es be fo re e nte ri ng the pr iso n c ha pe l, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as w ith in i ts dis cr et ionto fi nd tha t the re w as no d isp ar at e tr eatm en t, and the re fo re no13

co nst itu tio na lly

sig nif ic an t de pr ivatio n, giv enthat W ill iam s f ai le d to a lle ge f

ac ts show ing that any

oth er spe ci fi c inm at e in tha t i nst itu tio n ha d be ena llo w ed to re m ove his sho es pr ior

to en te ri ng the pr iso n c ha pe l. A lth oughW ill iam s va gue ly alludes to a religious sect that does engage in the practice of shoe re m oval before entering the prison chapel, W illiam s did no t allege, or nam e, any specific inm ates who engaged in the practice at the particular corr ectional facility to which he w as co nf in ed . III. C ONC LUS ION Be ca use W ill iam s’ s di d no t de m onstrate that he w as unc onst itu tio na lly de pr ive d of

apr ote ct ed

f ed er al r igh t, e ith er

und er the F ir st A m en dm en t or

the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by di sm is si ng W il li am s’s co m pl ai nt as f riv ol ou s, p ur su an t t o § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( i). Ac cordingly , w e AF FIRM.