Court Opinion

ID: 21223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:42:36+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:51.806275
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                          ____________________

                             No. 99-11358
                           Summary Calendar
                         ____________________

                         LARRY EUGENE SMITH,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

                      BILL LONG, District Clerk
                         Dallas County Texas,

                                                  Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                           (3:99-CV-7-P)
_________________________________________________________________
                            July 7, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     At issue is the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of the 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint of Larry Eugene Smith against Bill Long, in

his official capacity as District Clerk of Dallas County, Texas.

     Smith alleged that: his unsuccessful attempts to purchase a

complete statement of facts from the county clerk’s office resulted

from discriminatory treatment; and without the statement of facts,

he was unable to prepare a habeas application and therefore denied

access to the courts.

     A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim is

reviewed de novo.     E.g., Hall v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693, 696 (5th

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Cir. 1999).   The complaint is construed liberally in plaintiff’s

favor and the dismissal may be upheld only if “it appears beyond a

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

his claim which would entitle him to relief”.   Id. (quoting Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).

     The district court, considering Smith’s complaint and his

answers to the magistrate judge’s subsequent questionnaire, in the

light most favorable to Smith, concluded Smith did not adequately

“allege discriminatory intent or ... deliberate or intentional

conduct” that would invoke § 1983.    Smith v. District Clerk of

Dallas County, No. 3:99-CV-0007-P, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Tex. 1

Nov. 1999).   We agree.

                                                       AFFIRMED

                              - 2 -