Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould 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. 08- 50600 S u m m ary C al en da r
GE OR GE S T EP HEN C L EG G Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. DA W N GR OUNDS ; KE NNET H DE AN; F NU F UL L M AN D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 82

B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * G e o r g e S te p h e n C le g g , T e x a s p r is o n e r#6 8 1 1 9 7 , su e dp r is o n o ffic ia ls unde r4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3 as sert i ng t hata po l i c y pr o hibi t i ng i nm at e s f r o m us i ng t h e res t room du ri n g t w o- h ou r l ibrary sess i on s ef fect ive ly p rev en t s hi m f rom c o n d u c tin gle g a l re s e a r c h in v io la tio n o f h is rig h t o f a c c e s s to th e co u r ts . He as se r t ed t hathe has a m edi c al c ondi t i on t hat c ause s hi m t o uri nat e f r equent l y. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d th e s u it a s fr iv o lo u s a n dfo rfa ilu r e to s ta te a cla im United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50600

2 becau se C l egg fai l ed to assertan act u alinju ry a s a l i t i gan tt h at r esul t ed f rom t h e pol i cy. Th e court d en i ed C l egg’ s m ot i on f or l eave to proc eed i n f orm a pa upe r i s ( I FP) o n ap pe al , c e r t i f yi ng t hat t he ap pe al w as no t t ak e n i n g o o d fai t h. Cl e g gs e e ks t hi s c o ur t ’ s l e a v e t o p r o c e e dI FP. A l th ou gh C l eg g a sse rts g en era l l y th a t his attem p ts t o ob tain po stconvic t i on rel i ef

an d an out- of

- t i m e ap pea l w ere ad versel y af fect ed by t h e pri son pol i cy, he fa il s t o asser tan y fact s t h at dem on st rat e how he w as i nj u red as a l i t i gan t . A ccor di n gl y, he fai l s to show tha th e w i l lrai se a non f rivol ou s i ssue on a p p e a l. S ee L ew i s v. Casey , 51 8 U
. S. 34 3, 35 1 ( 19 96 )
. The m o t i o n i s de ni e d a nd th e a p p e a l is d is m is s e d a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F. 3d 197, 202 & n. 24 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) ; 5 T H C IR . R. 4 2 .2
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f C le g g ’ s co m p la in t a n do u rd is m is s a l o f h is a p p e a l co u n t a s tw o s tr ik e s fo rp u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). SeeAd e peg ba v . Ham m o ns , 1 03 F. 3d3 83 , 3 87 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6)
. Cl e ggi s c aut i o ne d t hato nc e he ac c um ul at es t hre e st r i kes , he m ay not pro c ee d I FP i n any c ivi lac t i on o rappeal f i l ed w h i l e h e i s i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e is u n der im m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee § 1 9 1 5 (g). AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; I F P M OT I ON DENI ED ; SA NCT I ON WARNI NG I S S UED
.