Court Opinion

ID: 9925493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 01:00:33.572646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.477443
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50583        Document: 00517038578             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/19/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-50583
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               January 19, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Larry R. Steele,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   United States Postal Service; State of Texas; United
   States of America; Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice; Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CV-4
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Larry R. Steele, Texas prisoner # 01864228, moves for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the dismissal of his civil
   rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50583      Document: 00517038578            Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/19/2024

                                      No. 22-50583

   Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The motion is
   a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in
   good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          The district court dismissed Steele’s claims against the United States
   Postal Service (USPS), the United States, and the State of Texas after
   determining that the defendants were immune from suit. Steele maintains
   that the USPS is no longer a governmental entity and thus does not warrant
   sovereign immunity. He is incorrect. See Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S.
   481, 484 (2006). The fact that he is alleging federal question jurisdiction
   against the USPS and the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does
   not preclude sovereign immunity in the absence of a statute waiving such
   immunity. Elldakli v. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 670 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
   No. 23-115, 2023 WL 8531894 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023).               Although Steele
   correctly asserts that the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Administrative
   Procedures Act may waive sovereign immunity in certain situations, those
   are not applicable here. See 5 U.S.C. § 704; McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884
   F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1989).          Steele’s assertion that the Eleventh
   Amendment does not bar lawsuits against the State of Texas because he was
   alleging that the defendant was acting contrary to federal law is incorrect. See
   Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 339-40 (1979).
          With respect to the individual defendants, officials with the Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), Steele does not challenge the
   district court’s dismissal of the claims against them in their official capacities,
   and any such arguments are deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
   Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As for the
   claims against these defendants in their individual capacities, Steele contends
   that they have violated his rights of access to the courts under the First and
   Fourteenth Amendments because the USPS is the only authorized service to
   be used by TDCJ prisoners to send legal mail to the courts. He maintains

                                           2
Case: 22-50583     Document: 00517038578           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/19/2024

                                    No. 22-50583

   that undue delays in the postal system and the existence of third-party
   delivery services requires that prisoners be permitted to use another means
   of delivering legal mail. Steele has not shown that exclusive use of the USPS
   precludes prisoners from having a reasonably adequate opportunity to
   challenge their convictions or the conditions of their confinement. See Lewis
   v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). Moreover, Steele has not sufficiently
   alleged that he was unable to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim in light of
   delays in the mail system. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415
   (2002).
          Finally, Steele alleges that the individual defendants have deprived
   him of access to the courts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
   because they have limited prisoners’ access to paper supplies, free postage,
   the prison law library, and public record information. He concedes that he
   has access to the prison law library, and he has not shown that limitations on
   “extra” time or weekend visits were unreasonable or insufficient. See
   McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 1998). Additionally, Steele
   has not shown that he has a constitutional right to unlimited postage, paper,
   or public records. See Felix v. Rolan, 833 F.2d 517, 518 (5th Cir. 1987).
   Moreover, Steele has not sufficiently alleged that the limitations on supplies
   or library access prevented him from pursuing a nonfrivolous legal claim. See
   Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415; McDonald, 132 F.3d at 230-31.
          Steele has not established that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on
   appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
   Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED,
   and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
   n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous
   counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
   103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by
   Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 (2015). Steele is CAUTIONED that if

                                         3
Case: 22-50583     Document: 00517038578          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/19/2024

                                   No. 22-50583

   he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP 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).

                                        4