Jackson v. Caddo Corrtl Center, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30989
Summary Calendar
ROBERT JACKSON, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CADDO CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CADDO CORRECTIONAL CENTER; STEVE PRATOR;
POLICE JURY OF CADDO PARISH; PATSY WILLIAMS;
GAY, Ms.; CADDO PARISH; COLE FLOURNOY;
BRENDA FLOWERS; DAVID BOONE; SELLS, Chief;
GARY LOFTIN; JANE DOE, Clerk of Court;
ROSIE M. HANNA; KELLY WARD; LEWIS,Captain;
JOHN DOE, Lieutenant; WALKER, Sergeant;
DAVID CARMACK; STEPHANIE CARMACK,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________
ROBERT JACKSON, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STEVE PRATOR, ET AL.,
Defendants,
STEVE PRATOR; PATSY WILLIAMS; DON HATHAWAY;
LOWE, Ms.,
Defendants-Appellees.

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 02-30989
-2-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-2717
USDC No. 01-CV-2190
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Jackson, III, Louisiana prisoner # 73202/# 162596,
appeals the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his two
42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, which were consolidated by the district
court. On appeal, he has moved to file supplemental briefs,
supplemental reply briefs, and supplemental citations. These
motions are DENIED.
Jackson does not challenge on appeal the district court’s
dismissal of his claims against Caddo Parish on the basis of
invalid service or the ruling that his claims raised in the trial
court other than his allegation that he was denied access to the
courts were frivolous. These challenges are abandoned. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.3d 744, 748
(5th Cir. 1987). For the first time in his reply brief, Jackson
asserts that the district court should have considered his
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and that the grievance
procedure of the Caddo Correctional Center (CCC) was unreasonable.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 02-30989
-3-
This court will not consider these claims. See Taita Chem. Co. v.
Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 384 n.9 (5th Cir. 2001).
Jackson has not established that the district court did not
liberally construe his claims. The district court did not err in
not ruling on defendant Patsy Williams’s assertion of a qualified-
immunity defense because it concluded that Jackson had not
established a constitutional violation, a necessary prerequisite
for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Jackson has not shown that the
district court abused its discretion in denying him discovery. See
Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990). Contrary
to Jackson’s assertions, the district court did consider his
affidavits as competent summary-judgment evidence as to the
pertinent facts; his conclusional allegations on the ultimate issue
of prejudice were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary
judgment. See Clark v. America’s Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d
295, 297 (5th Cir. 1997).
Jackson contends that the defendants interfered with his
ability to file general state-law claims. The Constitution does
not protect Jackson’s ability to file actions not connected to his
criminal cases, his attempts at postconviction relief, or the
conditions of his confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355
(1996).
Jackson contends that he was entitled to library access to
prepare for his criminal case, in which he was proceeding pro se.
Because the state courts offered him appointed counsel, his right

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 02-30989
-4-
of access to the courts was satisfied. See Degrate v. Godwin, 84
F.3d 768, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1996).
Jackson alleges conclusionally on appeal that he suffered
prejudice through the dismissal of or the inability to file
lawsuits protected under Lewis. He also maintains that he
established prejudice in the district court through his allegations
of the inadequacies of the materials in the CCC’s law library and
maintains that the district court erred in not requiring the
defendants to answer those allegations. Such conclusional
allegations of prejudice are insufficient to warrant relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Colle v. Brazos County, Tex., 981 F.2d 237, 246
(5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, Jackson’s assertions by reference to
his district court pleadings are insufficient to preserve error on
appeal. Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 443 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996).
Jackson contends that the district court erred in ruling that
he had not exhausted his administrative remedies on his claim that
he was unreasonably denied access to hardbound books he ordered
directly from publishers. He has not established that the district
court erred in that ruling. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; Underwood v.
Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --