Hall v. Hoke, 031912 FED5, 11-20515
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||MARSA HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR FRANK HOKE; ROBERT H. QUADA; KELLY STRONG, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 19, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-4765
Marsa Hall, Texas prisoner # 540183, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials for violating his right of access to the courts. The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hall also moves to supplement the record on appeal with evidence that he contends shows that prison officials have continued to deny him his right of access to the courts and retaliate against him for exercising that right.
Hall may not supplement the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) with evidence that was not presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2); United States v. Smith, 493 F.2d 906, 907 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1974). His motion is DENIED.
We pretermit consideration of whether Hall's claim was unexhausted because he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522, 526 (5th Cir. 2004); Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998).
Hall contends that his state suit was dismissed and his appeals of that dismissal were unsuccessful because he failed to comply with state procedural rules. He argues that he was unaware of the rules because he was not able to freely consult with other inmates in the law library due to the prison's no-talking-without-permission rule. He also argues that the state attorney who defended the state suit failed to serve him with a copy of the state's motions, which would have provided him with notice of the procedural deficiency in his suit.
A prisoner has a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To prevail on a claim for denial of access to the courts, the prisoner must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged violation by showing that his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim was hindered by...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP