P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20409 Su m m ar y Cal endar J AYS ON B RE NT DI CK I NS ON; R OB ER T L ES L I E CA L DW EL L ; DO N ED W AR D J O N ES P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n ts
v. TX, FORT BEN D CO U N TY; FORT BEN D COU N TY JAI L; M I LTON W RI GH T 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 S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V
- 1792 B ef ore G A R W O O D , JO L L Yan d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jays on B r entD i c ki nso n, T exas pri so ner# 14 91494, appeal s t he di sm i ss al of hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 com p l ai ntf orfai l ure t o s t at e ac l ai m purs uant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1915 A . D i cki n son argu es t h at bei n g den i ed a cc e ss to a l aw l ibrary vi ol ated his const i t u t ion a lri gh t s and t h at having ap poi n t ed coun seldi d n ot provide h i m w i t h adequat e a c c es s t o t he l aw . H e a r gues t hathe w as m i srepresented by coun sela n d that w i t h ou tacces s t o a l aw l ibrary, he could not United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20409

2 pr e ve ntt hi s m i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n. H e ar gue s t hat he had a r i ght t o i nve s t i ga t e t he l a w o n h i s o w n b e h a l f w h i l e h e h a dc h a r g e s p e n d i n ga g a i n s th i m. W e re v ie w th e d is m is s a l d e n o v o . S ee R u iz v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 160 F. 3d 273, 27 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 8) . “ [ T] h e fun da m e nt alc o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghto f a c c e s s t o t he c o ur t s r e quir e s pr i s o n aut ho r i t i e s t o as s i s ti nm at e s i n t he pr e pa r at i o n and f i l i ng of m ean i n gf

u ll egal pa pers by provi di n g pri soners w i t h adeq u ate l aw l ibrari es or a d eq u a te a ssistan ce f rom p erso n s train ed i n the l a w . ” B o u n d s v . S m ith , 430 U . S . 817 , 828 ( 197 7) ( em ph asi s add ed). B ecau se D i cki n son h ad court - ap poi n t ed c ounse lt o r epr es enthi m , he di d nothave a c ons t i t ut i onalr i ghtof ac c es s t o al aw lib r a r yto p r e p a r e h is cr im in a l d e fe n s e . S ee D eg ra te v . G o d w in , 84 F. 3d 768, 769 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t e r rin d is m is s in gh is c o mp l a i n tf

o rfa i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m. D ic k in s o n ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n d is fr iv o lo u s . S ee How ard v . Ki ng , 7 07 F . 2d 215 , 219
- 20 (5t h C i r. 198 3) . B ecau se th e app eali s f rivol ou s, it is d is m is s e d . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. Th e di sm i ss al of t hi s appeal as f r ivol ous and t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss al f o rfa i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m e ac h co unta s as t r i k e f o rp u r p o s e s o f

2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade

pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W e cau t i on D i cki n son t h at on ce h e a ccum u l ates t h ree st ri kes, h e m ay n otproceed i n f orm a pa u peri s i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated or det ai ned i n any fac i l i t y unl es s he i s und eri m m i nentdangerof s er i ous physi c al inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). AP P EALDI SM I SS ED AS F RIVO LOU S; SANCTI ON WAR NI NG I S S UED .