Court Opinion

ID: 9366237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:06.200697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.715921
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30589     Document: 00516429321         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                      August 11, 2022
                                  No. 21-30589
                                Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   Logan Mills,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   James LeBlanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections;
   Robert Tanner; Ernestine Smith; Lisa Jenkins; Cynthia
   Crain,

                                                         Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 2:21-CV-418

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Logan Mills, Louisiana
   prisoner # 532042, appeals: the dismissal of his complaint brought under 42

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30589      Document: 00516429321          Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                    No. 21-30589

   U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may
   be granted; the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction; and the
   denial of his motion for a transcript, at Government expense, of the hearing
   conducted pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985),
   overruled on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Mills’
   claims under § 1983 stemmed from the confiscation of certain items shipped
   to him through the mail, including photographs, picture catalogues, a novel,
   and magazines. (He concedes he eventually received 42 photographs that
   were initially confiscated.)
          Where, as here, the district court dismissed a complaint as frivolous
   and for failure to state a claim under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
   1915A(b)(1), review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th
   Cir. 2005). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
   fact”. Id.
          Inmates have a First Amendment right to be free from mail censorship
   not “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”. Turner v. Safley,
   482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987). Four basic factors are relevant to deciding if the
   challenged censorship regulation is reasonable. See id. at 89–91. First, there
   must be a sufficiently rational and non-arbitrary connection between the
   regulation and the prison’s legitimate interest. Id. at 89–90. Other factors
   are:   whether the inmate has alternative means of exercising the
   constitutional right; whether an accommodation of the inmate would
   adversely affect others and “the allocation of prison resources”; and
   “whether there are ready alternatives that could fully accommodate the
   prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests”. Samford
   v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Absent
   evidence the prison official’s acts are an exaggerated response in the light of
   valid policy considerations, “[a] court[] should ordinarily defer to [the]
   expert judgment” of the official. Turner, 482 U.S. at 86.

                                         2
Case: 21-30589       Document: 00516429321           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                      No. 21-30589

            Security, order, and inmate rehabilitation are, of course, legitimate
   penological interests. See Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir.
   1984).     Our court has upheld policies restricting materials that could
   compromise the safety of inmate population and rehabilitation interests. See
   Thompson v. Patteson, 985 F.2d 202, 205–206 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding officials
   could limit access to sexually-explicit materials, even ones that are not
   obscene, because prisons have legitimate interest in preventing “deviate,
   criminal sexual behavior”). Given these interests and weighing the pertinent
   factors, the district court was correct in dismissing Mills’ complaint.
            To the extent Mills challenges the adequacy of the prison-grievance
   procedure, his complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and was properly
   dismissed. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373.
            Next, Mills contends the district court erred in denying his motion for
   preliminary injunction. Denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. Black Fire Fighters Ass’n of Dallas v. City of Dallas, 905
   F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990). “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be
   upheld where the movant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the
   four criteria” necessary for relief. Id. (emphasis in original). Because Mills
   only notes the first factor necessary for a preliminary injunction (the court’s
   ruling Mills could not demonstrate substantial likelihood of success), the
   court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.
            Finally, Mills asserts the court erred in denying his motion for a
   transcript of the Spears hearing at Government expense. To obtain a
   transcript at Government expense, Mills must satisfy the criteria of 28
   U.S.C. § 753(f) (providing United States shall pay fees for transcripts in civil
   proceedings to person appearing in forma pauperis “if the trial judge or a
   circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a
   substantial question)”). The movant must show why the transcript is

                                           3
Case: 21-30589      Document: 00516429321           Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 21-30589

   “necessary for proper disposition of his appeal”. Norton v. Dimazana, 122
   F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Mills has not shown why a transcript
   was necessary, the court did not err in denying his motion. See Harvey v.
   Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985) (noting party seeking transcript
   must show “particular need” or raise “substantial question”). (Although
   Mills asserts that a transcript was necessary to show he made no concessions
   concerning any applicable penological interests, we assume for purposes of
   this appeal that he made no such concessions.)
          The district court’s dismissal of Mills’ complaint counts as a strike
   under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th
   Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S.
   532, 534–41 (2015). Mills is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three
   strikes, he will not be allowed to 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).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4