* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-20756

Summary Calendar

PAUL MINIX

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LAWRENCE STOKER, Grievance Coordinator; SANDRA LEE, Correctional

Officer; RUTH NALLEY, Correctional Officer; DIANA CLAY, Assistant Warden;

EVELYN BRANHAM, Mailroom Supervisor; CHRISTINA MELTON CRAIN;

MICHAEL WATSON, Correctional Officer; LEONARD GARCIA, Prison Inmate;

HAROLD HALEY, Captain; SHIRLEY NUNN, Property Officer; D L FINKE,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Assistant Representative; FRANK

HOKE, Accessory to Court Supervisor

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-2398

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Paul Minix,Texas prisoner

# 638154, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for several

alleged improper acts perpetrated upon him by numerous prison officials. Minix

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20756

2

subsequently sought leave to file a supplemental complaint. The district court

denied Minix’s motion to supplement, dismissed his § 1983 suit as frivolous, and

denied his request to proceed IFP on appeal. Minix now requests authorization

to proceed IFP on appeal, and he also moves this court for permission to file a

supplemental brief. Minix’s request to file a supplemental brief is granted.

Minix argues that the district court erred by dismissing the claims raised

in his initial complaint as frivolous. He argues that defendants Stoker, Lee, and

Nalley refused to file his grievances, retaliated against him, deprived him of his

property, and infringed his right of access to courts.

Minix has not shown that the district court erred by concluding that he

had no constitutional right to an inmate grievance system. See Orellana v. Kyle,

65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995). Minix’s claims of retaliation are unavailing

because they are based on no more than his own conclusional assertions and

because he has failed to “allege a chronology of events from which retaliation

may plausibly be inferred.” See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir.

1995); Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1988). Minix’s access

to courts claim fails because he has not shown that the defendants’ acts

prejudiced his position in a specific suit. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d

225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1998). Minix’s claims concerning deprivation of property

fail because Texas has an adequate postdeprivation remedy for confiscation of

property. See Cathey v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995); Sheppard v.

La. Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). Minix has not shown that

the district court abused its discretion by dismissing these claims as frivolous.

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

Minix contends that Assistant Warden Clay violated his constitutional

rights by endorsing the improper acts of other defendants. This claim fails

because Minix has not shown that Clay was personally involved in the acts of

which he complains. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983).
No. 07-20756

3

Minix argues that defendant Branham infringed his rights by retaliating

against him, disposing of his property, and interfering with his mail. Minix’s

claims that Branham retaliated against him are based on nothing more than

Minix’s own beliefs, which are insufficientto raise a cognizable retaliation claim.

See Whittington, 842 F.2d at 819. Minix’s contention that Branham wrongly

disposed of his property fails to set forth a valid § 1983 claim because the state

of Texas provides an adequate avenue of relief for this claim. See Cathey, 47

F.3d at 164; Sheppard, 873 F.2d at 763. Finally, Minix has failed to show that

his constitutional rights were infringed with respect to his mail. See Busby v.

Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 722 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d

816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993).

Minix challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to supplement.

He argues that his claims were all sufficiently related to be presented in the

same suit because they all involve acts that took place on the same prison unit

and because he cannot be granted complete relief unless all of these claims are

considered in the same suit. Minix has not shown that the district court erred

by denying his motion to supplement. See Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr., 136

F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1998).

Minix has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate claim.

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Consequently, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is

denied, and this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of Minix’s suit as

frivolous. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

Minix also earned a strike in a previous suit. See Minix v. Dixon, 80 F. App’x

328, 329 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2003). Because Minix now has accumulated at least

three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed
No. 07-20756

4

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.