Case Name: Jayson Brent DICKINSON; Robert Leslie Caldwell; Don Edward Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TX, FORT BEND COUNTY; Fort Bend County Jail; Milton Wright, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-20
Citations: 325 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 08-20409
Parties: Jayson Brent DICKINSON; Robert Leslie Caldwell; Don Edward Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TX, FORT BEND COUNTY; Fort Bend County Jail; Milton Wright, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
Jayson Brent DICKINSON; Robert Leslie Caldwell; Don Edward Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TX, FORT BEND COUNTY; Fort Bend County Jail; Milton Wright, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-20409
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 20, 2009.
Jayson Brent Dickinson, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Robert Leslie Caldwell, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Don Edward Jones, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jayson Brent Dickinson, Texas prisoner # 1491494, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dickinson argues that being denied access to a law library violated his constitutional rights and that having appointed counsel did not provide him with adequate access to the law. He argues that he was misrepresented by counsel and that without access to a law library, he could not prevent this misrepresentation. He argues that he had a right to investigate the law on his own behalf while he had charges pending against him.
We review the dismissal de novo. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.1998). "[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inrriates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) (emphasis added). Because Dickinson had court-appointed counsel to represent him, he did not have a constitutional right of access to a law library to prepare his criminal defense. See Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim.
Dickinson's appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Ade-pegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Dickinson 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.