Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed 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. 09- 50266 Su m m ar yC al endar

A R T U M U S G R E G G V IL L A R R E A L , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t,

ve r s us SEN I O R W AR D EN PAU L M O RA LE S, D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee.

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. 5: 09- C V

- 72

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: *

A r tu m u s V illa r r e a l, T e x a s p r is o n e r#6 9 1 7 6 9 , co n te s ts t h e d is m is s a l o f h is 42 U
. S. C

. § 1983 civilri ght s c om pl ai nt as f r i vol ous under 28 U
. S. C

. §§ 1915A United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50266 Document: 00511062181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 50266

See Mikeska v. C

ollins , 90 0 F .2d 833 , 837(5th Cir. 1 990) (cit ed withapp roval in Al i , 1 2 5 9F .3 d at 3 1 8), opinio n withdrawn and supers eded on reh’g on jur isdict ional gro unds an d reinstate d in relevantpart , 9 2 8F .2 d 1 2 6 , 1 2 6( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ), op ini on on reh ’g a b ro gated i n partonju risdict ional gro unds by W ash v. Jo hns on , 343F .3d 6 85, 687 -88 (5thC ir. 2 003) (per curi a m). 2 an d 19 15(e)

. V i l l arreala sser t s that t h e T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce

SS C orrec t i on alI n st i t u t i on s D i vi si on requi res h i m t o eng age i n pri son l abor or fac e di sc i pl i nary c harge s and pun i shm enti n vi ol a t i on o f hi s c ons t i t ut i onal
r ig h ts
. W e re v ie w th e d is m is s a l a s fr iv o lo u s fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee G eiger v. Jow ers , 40 4 F. 3d 37 1, 3 73 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)

. A c o m pl ai nti s “ f r i vo l o us ” i f

i tl ac ks “an arg u a b l e b a sis i n l a w or fact. ” Ber r y v . Br ady , 192 F
. 3d 504 , 507 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). “Acom p l a i n t l a ck s an a rg u a b l e ba sis i n l a w i f i t i s ba sed on an i n d i sp u ta b l y m eritl ess l eg a lthe ory [. ]” Harper v. S h ow ers , 17 4 F. 3d 71 6, 71 8 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n d cita tion s o m itted ). V i l l ar r ealar gues t hat , be c ause he w as se nt enc ed i n 1994, w hen Texas l aw d i d n o tp r o v i d e s p e c i f i c a l l yfo rt h e i mp o s i t i o n o f l a b o ro n c o n v i c t e d i n ma t e s , c o mpe l l i ng hi m t o w o r k vi o l at e s t he Thi r t e e nt h Am e ndm e ntpr o hibi t i o n o n i nvo l unt ar y ser vi t ude. Th e T hi r t ee nt h A m endm ent , h ow eve r , exc ept s, f r om t he ge ner al p r o h ib itio n , co m p e lle d la b o ra s p u n is h m e n t fo ra cr im e . S ee A l iv. Joh n son , 259 F. 3d 317, 318 ( 5t h C i r . 2001)

. That ex c ept i on appl i es even w her e t he i nm at e, as in V illa r r e a l’ s ca s e , is n o t s e n te n c e d s p e c ific a llyto la b o r . Se e i d. To t he e xt e nt t hatVi l l ar r e ala r gue s t hatc o m pu l s o r y l ab o rv i o l at e s s t at e l aw, he a s s e r t s a “ s e pa ra te, n on -con sti tu ti on a li ssu e.” Se e i d. at 318 n. 2. Vi l l ar r eal ’ s ar gum entt hat h e is co m p e lle d to w o r k b yth e th r e a t o f d is c ip lin a r y p r o c e e d in g s is s im ila r ly
w i th ou t m erit. 1 M ore ov er, V i l l a rrea l h a s fa i l ed to sh ow tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed i ts di s c r e t i o n i n di s m i s s i ng as f r i vo l o us hi s Te nt h Am e ndm e ntc l ai m . The l e ga lc o ncl u si on t h at c om pu l sory l abor f or c on vi ct ed i n m a te s is consti t u t i on aldoes not
c o nt r av e ne t he Tent h Am e ndm e nt ’ s di r e c t i ve t hat “ po w e r s no tde l e ga t e d t o t he U n i t ed S t ates by the C on st i t u t i on , nor proh ib ited b y itt o t h e States , are r eCase: 09-50266 Document: 00511062181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 50266

See Un ited

Statesv . L ip scom b , 29 9 F. 3d3 03, 361 (5th Cir. 2 002) (noting th at the 2 amen dment addresses the “properbalance b etweenth e St ates and the Federal Government” u n de r which , gen er ally , th e “s tate s po sse ss th e prim aryauthorityto defin e a n d enfo rc e crim

in al law”)

. See Sweezy v. New Hampshire , 354 U.S. 234 , 255 (195 7) (“T]his Court has hel d th at 3 the conc ept of separation of po wers embo died in the Unit ed State s Con stitution is not manda

to ryinst ategovern me nts .”). 3 served t o t h e States res pectivel y, or t o t h e peop l e. ” R ather, t h e l egal concl u si on 2
s upp o r t s t he pr e r o ga t i ve o f t he s t at e s t o de t e r m i ne t he a ppr o pr i at e pun i s hm e nt f or vi ol ati on s of

t h ei r l aw s. V i l l arreal ’ s c h al l en ge t h at the st ate pri son syst em , as pa r to f

t he e xe c ut i ve b r anc h o f s t at e g o ve r n m en t , i s a c t i ng as pa r to f t he j udi c i alb r anc h o f go ve r nm e nt w he n i t i m po s e s l ab o r as pa r to f t he pun i s hm e nt for a crim e is eq u a l l y w i th ou t m erit. 3 Vi l l ar r e ala r gue s t hat c o m pe l l i ng hi m t o w o r k ad ds a f ur t he rpun i s hm e nt to h is s e n te n c e in v io la tio n o f th e p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t d o u b le je o p a r d ya n d h is du e process ri gh t s. Th e D ou bl e Jeopa rdy C l au se “ protec t s onl y aga i n s tt he i m pos itio n o f m u ltip le c r im in a l p u n is h m e n ts fo rth e s a m e o ffe n s e . . . a n d th e n o n ly
w h en su ch occu rs i n su cces sive p roce ed i n gs . . . . ” H u d son v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 522 U .S . 9 3 , 9 8 -9 9 (1 9 9 7 ) (in te r n a l c ita tio n s a n d e m p h a s is o m itt e d ). T h e s ta tu to r ily aut hor i ze d l abori n T exas i s par tof a c onvi c t ’ s pun i shm enti n T ex a s, n ot an
a d d itio n a l cr im in a l p u n is h m e n t im p o s e d in a s e p a r a te p r o c e e d in g . S ee A li , 259 F .3 d a t 3 1 7 -1 8 ; H u d son , 5 2 2 U .S . a t 9 8 -9 9
. V i l l a rrea lad d i ti on a lly con ten d s th a t i m p osin g lab or on h i m pu rsu a n t t o a s ta tu te e n a c te d a fte rh e w a s s e n te n c e d v io la te s th e E x P o s t F a c to C la u s e . A lt hough appl i c at i on to V i l l ar r ealof t he l aw s pec i f

i c al l y pe r m i t t i ng c om pul so r y l abo rw as r e t r o s pe c t i ve t r e at m e nt , i tnei t he ra l t e r e d t he de f i ni t i o n o f

c r i m i nalc o nd u c t n o rin c r e a s e d h is p u n is h m e n t. S ee Ly n ce v. Ma th is , 519 U
. S. 433, 441 (1 9 9 7 ); A li , 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 3 1 8 ; Mi ke s ka , 9 0 0 F .2 d a t 8 3 7
. V i l l arreal h as fai l ed t o show t h at t h e di st ri ct court abu se d its di scr et i on in d is m is s in gh is co m p la in t a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Harper , 1 74 F. 3d a t7 18
. Thi s a pCase: 09-50266 Document: 00511062181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 50266

4 p e a l, lik e w is e , is fr iv o lo u s . S ee5 T H C IR . R
. 42. 2. B ot h t h e di st ri ct co u rt’ s di sm i ss alof

V i l l ar r eal ’ s c om pl ai nt as f r i vol ous and ourdi sm i ss alof thi s appealas fr iv o lo u s co u n t a s 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 ). See Ad e peg ba v. Ham m o ns , 1 03 F. 3d 3 83 , 3 87

- 88 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6)

. Vi l l ar r e ali s w ar ne d t hat , i f he
ac c um ul at e s t hr e e s t r i ke s unde r§ 1 91 5( g) , he w i l lno tb e a l l o w e d t o pr o c e e d in for m ap a u

p er is i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lun l ess h e i s un der i m m i n en tdan ger o 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 ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED
. Case: 09-50266 Document: 00511062181 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/25/2010