* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-30736

Conference Calendar

 

BEN ALAN SNIPES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KELLY WARD; JERRY GODWIN; WALTER TOLLIVER;

BATSON, Lieutenant; RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary,

Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-493

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ben Alan Snipes, Louisiana inmate # 68731/372123, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit as frivolous. The district

court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. 

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We

review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for an

abuse of discretion. Id.
No. 98-30736

-2-

Snipes’ allegations that the defendants retaliated against

him with threats and verbal harassments do not demonstrate the

violation of a constitutional right. See Bender v. Brumley, 1

F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993)(pretrial detainee)(allegations

of verbal abuse and threats by prison officials do not state a

claim under § 1983). 

Snipes’ allegations that the defendants violated his rights

under the Eighth Amendment by ordering him to work outside in

freezing temperatures without gloves do not demonstrate a

constitutional violation. Snipes did not allege conditions that

deprived him of life’s necessities, he did not allege serious

injury that required medical attention, and he did not allege

that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See

Harris v. Angelina County, Texas, 31 F.3d 331, 334 (5th Cir.

1994); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 834 (1994). 

We cannot entertain Snipes’ claim, raised for the first time

on appeal, that the defendants limited his access to the courts

by requiring him to seek assistance from a single, unqualified

law clerk and that his ability to research statutes was limited

by the computer system available for inmate use. Cf. Travelers

Indem. Co. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 166 F.3d 761, 770 (5th Cir.

1999) (legal theory of recovery waived by not raising it in

district court).

Snipes’ appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. 
No. 98-30736

-3-

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal

in the district court of the complaint as frivolous count as two

separate “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We

caution Snipes that once he 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.

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; WARNING ISSUED.