### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50047 Summary Calendar

STEVEN L. AMIS , Plaintiff

− Appellant ,

v ersus ALLISON COOK, Deputy Clerk, Official and Personal Capacities; DONNA KAY MCKINNEY, District Clerk, Official and Personal Capacities , Defendant s − Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:13

- CV

- 119

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Steven L. Amis, Texas prisoner # 1059402, appeals the dismissal , for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50047 Document: 00512845089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2014No. 14

- 50047

failure to state a claim, of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against former Bexar County Deputy Clerk Allison Cook and Bexar County District Clerk Donna Kay McKinney . He contend s that the dismissal was arbitrary and improper because the court failed to accept the alle ged facts as true, to view the complaint and its attachments in the light most favorable to him, to draw

rea son a ble inferences and resolve doubts in his favor, and to hold the pro se

com plaint to a less stringent standard. A mis asserts that his well

- p leaded alle

ga tions and competent evidence clearly stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against Cook and McKinney and that the district court’s factual deter mina

tions regard ing his entitlement to mandamus relief and Cook’s negligence were incorrect and imp roperly reached.
D istrict courts screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a government officer or employee and dismiss claims that are frivolous or mali

cious or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 19 15A(a), (b)(1). We review dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915 A(b)(1) de novo , using the same standard applicable to dismissals pur

suant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Coleman v. Sweetin , 74 5 F.3d 756, 763 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Amis alleged that the appellees violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances, to access the courts, and to due process of law when Cook erroneo usly filed a man
da mus p etition in Amis’s closed criminal case and McKinney deliberately failed
to correct Cook’s error. Amis claims that he sought to file the mandamus peti

tion pursuant to Section 552.321 of the Texas Government Code “to resolve a
rele ase of information dispute between [himself] and University Health Sys

tem, San Antonio, TX.” Amis cannot show that he was prejudiced by the alleged violation. See

2 Case: 14-50047 Document: 00512845089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2014No. 14

- 50047

Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415

- 16 (2002 ). Under the Texas Public Information Ac t, governmental bodies may, but are not required to , accept or comply with information requests from prisoners or their agents, unless the prisoner’s agent is an attorney. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 552.028. Because the governmental body’s decision whether t o provide the requested information is a discretionary rather than ministerial act, there is no arguable basis in law to support a prisoner’s claim for mandamus relief pursuant to § 552.321

. See
Har rison v. Vance , 34 S.W.3d 660, 663 (Tex. App. ―Dallas 2000 , no pet. ). Amis did not attach the mandamus petition to his complaint, nor did he describe the requested information, whether the request was made by his

attor ney, or the University Health System’s reason for denying it . Thus, the complaint fail ed to describe the underlying mandamus claim well enough for
the reader to deter mine whether it was nonfrivolous and whether its “‘argua

ble’ nature . . . [was] more than hope.” Harbury , 536 U.S. at 41 6. Although the district court did not identify th at deficiency, we can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Sojourner T

. v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992)

. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Amis’s claims against Cook and McKinney, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Amis’s motion to dismiss the appellees’ letter brief is DENIED.

3 Case: 14-50047 Document: 00512845089 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2014