IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10647

Summary Calendar

YUSUFU DANMOLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-416

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yusufu Danmola, federal prisoner # 54779-177, filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI, 403 U.S. 

388, 390-98 (1971). He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We review the district court’s ruling de novo. See Geiger 

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). A complaint is frivolous if it has 

 

* 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

September 7, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10647 Document: 00514631991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2018
No. 17-10647

2

no “arguable basis in fact or law.” Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th 

Cir. 2012). In addition, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)).

As with the complaint in the district court, the majority of Danmola’s 

claims on appeal involve assertions that his federal conviction for being a felon 

in possession of a firearm violates the Second Amendment and that his 

criminal proceedings were rife with constitutional violations. However, he may 

not recover damages for his “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 

imprisonment” until he has proven “that the conviction or sentence has been 

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a 

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question 

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) (footnote omitted); see also

Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26-27 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying Heck in 

a Bivens action). Danmola has not made the requisite showing.

In addition, Danmola asserts that the prison law library was inadequate 

because he was unable to obtain copies of the Texas Constitution and the 

Uniform Commercial Code to aid him in filing pro se motions challenging the 

criminal proceedings. Because he had refused the offer of court-appointed 

representation, he had no constitutional right of access to a law library in order 

to prepare for his pro se defense at trial. See Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 

769 (5th Cir. 1996). Although Danmola also complains that prison officials 

opened his legal mail outside of his presence, in violation of prison policy, such 

an action does not constitute a violation of his constitutional rights. See Brewer 

v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court properly 

 Case: 17-10647 Document: 00514631991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2018
No. 17-10647

3

concluded that Danmola’s claims were frivolous and that he had failed to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 

129 S. Ct. at 1949; Morris, 702 F.3d at 189. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

The dismissal of Danmola’s complaint in the district court counts as a 

strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Danmola is WARNED that, once he 

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil 

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless 

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 17-10647 Document: 00514631991 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2018