Court Opinion

ID: 22529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:59:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:05.889237
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-10455
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

RONNIE L. MACK, also known as
Robert C. Miller,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN JONES;
T. HENRY, Lieutenant;
LUKASHEAY, Sergeant,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                Northern District of Texas, Dallas
                      USDC No. 3:99-CV-1645-J
_________________________________________________________________
                          December 6, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ronnie L. Mack, Texas prisoner # 342546, appeals the district

court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) of his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.   We have reviewed the record, Mack’s brief, and the

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
applicable law, and we find no reversible error.        Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment is affirmed.

     Because Mack failed to show that his position as a litigant

was prejudiced, his claim that he was denied access to the courts

because of prison mailroom officials’ failure to deliver his mail

to his attorney is meritless.      See Walker v. Navarro County Jail,

4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993).             Additionally, Mack has no

constitutional right to act as a prison writ-writer.         See Tighe v.

Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 43 (5th Cir. 1996).             His claim that prison

mailroom officials interfered with his mailings to other prisoners

also fails on this basis.

     The    district   court’s   dismissal    of   Mack’s   complaint   as

frivolous counts as a strike against Mack.              See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Should Mack accumulate

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 in imminent danger of serious physical

injury.    See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).     Mack is cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous issues.

                        JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

                                    2