IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40498

Summary Calendar

RANDY W. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CV-61

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Randy W. Williams, Texas prisoner # 401747, appeals from the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. We 

review the district court’s decision de novo. Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 497 

(5th Cir. 2011).

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40498 Document: 00512450355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2013
No. 13-40498

Williams argues that prison officials seized various documents from him 

and prevented him from mailing them in violation of his right of access to the 

courts and to pursue a redress of grievances. To the extent that seizure of the 

documents prevented Williams from seeking legal relief that was unrelated to 

his conviction or his conditions of confinement, the seizure does not implicate 

a constitutional issue. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999); 

see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996). Even if Williams needed the 

seized documents – which do not ostensibly concern either his conviction or 

conditions of confinement − to challenge his conviction, he has not shown that

seizure of the documents caused him to suffer an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 351. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that Williams’s 

right to access the courts was not violated. See id. at 351-52.

Further, Williams argues that the seizure of his documents violated the 

First Amendment and that prison officials’ reason for confiscating the 

documents was illegitimate. Here, prison officials decided in light of inmates’ 

abuse of the prison mail system that prisoners should be prohibited from 

having or mailing documents that could be used in fraudulent schemes. In 

light of the deference afforded to the determinations of prison officials, 

Williams has not shown that seizure of the documents was not rationally 

related to a legitimate penological interest. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 

126, 132 (2003); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). To the extent that he 

argues that the documents should not have been seized from him because he 

would have used them permissibly, his claim lacks merit. See Prison Legal 

News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 216 (5th Cir. 2012). 

To the extent that Williams suggests that seizure of the documents was 

contrary to the policies of the Texas Department of Justice, Correctional 

Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), the defendants’ mere failure to follow TDCJ2

 Case: 13-40498 Document: 00512450355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2013
No. 13-40498

CID policy does not amount to a constitutional violation. See Hernandez v. 

Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). Also, because Williams has not 

shown that he was denied any constitutional right, his claims based upon 

violations of prison policies were properly dismissed. See Myers v. 

Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1996).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Williams’s motion for

this court to take judicial notice is DENIED.

3

 Case: 13-40498 Document: 00512450355 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2013