Oudems v. Bell, 081110 FED5, 10-10128

Docket Nº:10-10128
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:STEVE LOUIS OUDEMS, Plaintiff - Appellant v. PATSY BELL; DIANA BOZEMAN; FRANK HOKE, Defendants-Appellees
Judge Panel:Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 11, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

STEVE LOUIS OUDEMS, Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

PATSY BELL; DIANA BOZEMAN; FRANK HOKE, Defendants-Appellees

No. 10-10128

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

August 11, 2010

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CV-298

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: [*]

Steve Louis Oudems, Texas prisoner # 1070555, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Oudems, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis (IFP), alleges that the prison library staff and officials at the Tulia Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied him access to the courts. Specifically, he asserts that the law library at the Tulia Unit lacked the legal materials necessary for him to prepare a motion for authorization to file a second or successive habeas application in this court. He also alleges that his motion and documents, including correspondence from this court regarding the filing of his motion, were "lost in the mail." The district court determined that Oudems was unable to show any actual injury in connection with his claims and dismissed Oudems' complaint with prejudice as frivolous.

Although Oudems argues generally that his right to access the courts and right to due process were violated, he does not specify any claims that he would have raised in a motion for authorization to file a successive motion in this court, nor does he identify any issue he was prevented from researching. As such, he has failed to demonstrate any actual injury in connection with his claims. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-416 (2002).

Because Oudems has not raised an issue of arguable merit, his appeal is frivolous...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP