From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Scott

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Sep 23, 1998
156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998)

Summary

holding that § 1915A applies even when a prisoner has paid the required filing fee

Summary of this case from Carr v. Dvorin

Opinion

No. 97-41242

September 23, 1998

Timothy P. Martin, Beeville, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.


The plaintiff, Timothy P. Martin, is a Texas prisoner in administrative segregation. In his section 1983 suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the Texas Board of Corrections, and TDCJ Director Wayne Scott, Martin challenges the conditions of his administrative segregation on due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment grounds. The magistrate reviewing Martin's complaint determined that it was frivolous and dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Specifically, Martin contends that his constitutional rights have been violated because the prison has limited his recreation and visitation time, restricted his ability to possess certain personal property, required him to wear a jumpsuit, denied him the right to buy certain commissary items, denied him dessert with his meals, required him to be handcuffed every time he left his cell, and fed him Vita-Pro.

On appeal, Martin claims that section 1915A does not apply to prisoners who are not suing in forma pauperis (IFP). In addition, Martin asserts that his complaint is not frivolous and that the magistrate abused her discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint. We affirm.

Martin first contends that section 1915A does not apply to prisoners who are not proceeding IFP. The plain language of this section, however, indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether that prisoner is or is not proceeding IFP. In pertinent part, section 1915A provides:

(a) Screening. — The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a government entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for dismissal. — On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint —

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Thus, as a suit by a prisoner against state agencies and officers, Martin's complaint is clearly within the ambit of section 1915A and we join the Sixth and Tenth Circuits in holding that this section applies even when a prisoner has paid the required filing fee. See, e.g., Ricks v. Mackey, No. 97-3181, 1998 WL 133828 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 1998); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the magistrate did not err by reviewing Martin's complaint under section 1915A.

Martin also appears to argue that section 1915A unconstitutionally restricts his access to the federal courts. A cursory review of this provision, however, reveals that it does not restrict a prisoner's access to the federal courts. Instead, section 1915A merely institutes certain screening procedures once a complaint is received by a district court. In this regard, section 1915A is analogous to the version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) that was in effect before Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In its prior form, section 1915(d) provided that in an IFP case, a court "may dismiss the case if . . . [the court is] satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." The function of section 1915A is also quite similar to the roles played by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 12(b)(6). Thus, because these related screening devices are, or were, of unquestionable constitutionality, Martin's contention that section 1915A is unconstitutional is without merit.

We now turn to the question of whether Martin's complaint was frivolous. In his complaint, Martin contends that the additional restrictions imposed on those in administrative segregation violate his due process and equal protection rights and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We review the magistrate's determination that Martin's complaint is frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, such as when a prisoner alleges the violation of a legal interest that does not exist. Id.

Martin's due process claim is frivolous. In Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1996), we held that "absent extraordinary circumstances, administrative segregation as such, being an incident to the ordinary life of a prisoner, will never be a ground for a constitutional claim" because it "simply does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest." Id. at 612-13. Because Martin complains about conditions that are far from "extraordinary," he has not alleged the violation of an existing due process interest.

Martin's equal protection claim is also frivolous. Significantly, Martin is not claiming that he is treated differently than others in his level of administrative segregation. Rather, he claims that he is treated differently than inmates in other levels of administrative segregation. The comparison made by Martin dooms his equal protection claim at the outset, for he does not take the position, which would likely be frivolous, that prisoners in different levels of administrative segregation are similarly situated for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Consequently, his complaint fails to implicate the Equal Protection Clause.

Like the other allegations in his complaint, Martin's claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment is frivolous. The conditions complained of by Martin, including his contention that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he became ill after being fed Vita-Pro-a soy-based meat substitute — simply do not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (holding that the inmate must show that the risk of which he complains is "so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk").

Finally, Martin contends that the magistrate abused her discretion when denying his motion to amend his complaint. This motion, however, was filed after the magistrate had dismissed Martin's complaint and entered final judgment. Accordingly, the magistrate lacked the power to grant this request and Martin could only move for reconsideration of the judgment or appeal. Whitaker v. City of Houston, 963 F.2d 831, 834 (5th Cir. 1992).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Martin's complaint as frivolous.


Summaries of

Martin v. Scott

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Sep 23, 1998
156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998)

holding that § 1915A applies even when a prisoner has paid the required filing fee

Summary of this case from Carr v. Dvorin

holding that “[t]he plain language of, however, indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether that prisoner is or is not proceeding [in forma pauperis]”

Summary of this case from Files v. Duerr

holding that “[t]he plain language of, however, indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether that prisoner is or is not proceeding [in forma pauperis].”

Summary of this case from Lee v. Smithart

holding that § 1915A screening applies regardless of whether the prisoner is or is not proceeding in forma pauperis

Summary of this case from Yat Ho Wong v. Bronchetti

holding that plaintiff's equal protection claim was frivolous where prisoners were not similarly situated

Summary of this case from Estrada v. Nehls

holding inmates with different housing classifications are not similarly situated

Summary of this case from Armstrong v. Mid-Level Practitioner John B. Connally Unit

holding section 1915A screening provision applies to all prisoners' actions against governmental entities, their officers and employees, regardless of whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis

Summary of this case from Harkness v. Thompson

holding that prisoner's allegations of cruel and unusual punishment based on administrative segregation, including commissary restrictions, were frivolous because such conditions did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment

Summary of this case from Birdo v. Barnett

holding that "absent exigent circumstances, administrative segregation as such, being an incident to the ordinary life of a prisoner, will never be a ground for a constitutional claim because it simply does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest"

Summary of this case from Lenor v. Davis

holding that prisoner's claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he became ill after consuming a soy-based meat substitute "simply does not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Annucci

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of desert, required jump suit, handcuffs during all transfers, and food that included Vita-Pro

Summary of this case from Beshere v. Peralta

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of dessert, required jump suit, and handcuffs during all transfers

Summary of this case from Henry v. Kerr Cnty.

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of desert, required jump suit, handcuffs during all transfers, and food that included Vita-Pro

Summary of this case from Kennedy v. Bexar Cnty.

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of desert, required jump suit, handcuffs during all transfers, and food that included Vita-Pro

Summary of this case from Aguiar v. Whiteley

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of desert, required jump suit, handcuffs during all transfers, and food that included Vita-Pro

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.

holding frivolous complaints by a prisoner in administrative segregation regarding restrictions on his recreation and visitation time, possession of personal property, ability to purchase items from the commissary, denial of desert, required jump suit, handcuffs during all transfers, and food that included Vita-Pro

Summary of this case from Hodson v. Moore

holding that prisoner's claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he became ill after consuming a soy-based meat substitute "simply does not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment"

Summary of this case from Riley-El v. Godinez

holding dismissal as frivolous under § 1915A is permissible regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid the filing fee or has qualified to proceed In Forma Pauperis under § 1915

Summary of this case from Allen v. San Antonio Police Dep't

holding that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding certain restrictions imposed in administrative segregation was frivolous

Summary of this case from Pierce v. Quarterman

holding that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding certain restrictions imposed in administrative segregation was frivolous

Summary of this case from Comeaux v. Thaler

holding that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding certain restrictions imposed in administrative segregation was frivolous

Summary of this case from Watson v. Quarterman

finding that allegations that a prisoner "became ill after being fed Vita-Pro-a soy-based meat substitute-simply do not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment"

Summary of this case from Hope v. Harris

finding no claim where a prisoner claimed that officials limited his visitation time

Summary of this case from Lavergne v. McDonald

finding no claim where a prisoner claimed that officials limited his visitation time

Summary of this case from Payne v. Sutterfield

finding no claim where a prisoner claimed that officials limited his visitation time

Summary of this case from Price v. Johnson
Case details for

Martin v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY P. MARTIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Sep 23, 1998

Citations

156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

Spence v. Taylor

Jail, No. 6:17-CV-0055-BL, 2018 WL 3873665, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018) (citing Martin v. Scott,…

Shabazz v. Franklin

V. PRELIMINARY SCREENING As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity,…