(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-4921
Summary Calendar
CARL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, Director
Dept. of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
CA 6 92 202
March 18, 1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Prisoner appeals the dismissal of his pro se and in forma
pauperis § 1983 suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We
affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
I.
A.
Texas prisoner Carl Williams, proceeding pro se and seeking in
forma pauperis status, filed a civil rights suit against 26 Texas

-- 1 of 6 --

2
prison officials. The magistrate judge held a hearing pursuant to
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). At the Spears
hearing, Williams explained the following allegations made in his
complaint.
In a conspiracy to murder him, prison officials are pumping
toxic gas through the vents in William's administratively
segregated cell, causing him brain damage. To his knowledge, gas
is not being pumped into anyone else's cell. Williams believes
that the warden and other corrections officers have participated
in, or have knowledge of, the poisoning.
Before bringing Williams his food, officers have occasionally
taken his tray to the cell of a certain prisoner infected with the
AIDS virus. The infected prisoner spits on his food, and then the
officers take the tray to Williams. Additionally, Williams
purchases peanut butter at the commissary to avoid infection. He
says two of these jars were tampered with; they contained bubbles
and the sealed tops were loose.
Without William's knowledge, an officer stabbed him in the
arm. He did not notice any blood until later. Williams believes
that the officer injected him with some type of virus. A prison
doctor testified that Williams was examined after he complained of
the stabbing. Some redness was found around his wrist, but no
lacerations. The doctor said that Williams has resisted
psychiatric and psychological examination. Williams responded that
prison officials sent him to see a psychologist only to cover up
their own misdeeds.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
Williams sent a certified letter to his sister, asking her to
retain counsel to help him. The return receipt came back with his
sister's signature forged.
As the magistrate judge was concluding the Spears hearing,
Williams told her he had several more allegations. The magistrate,
however, concluded the hearing without considering these
allegations.
B.
Williams made the following allegations in his complaint that
were not addressed at the Spears hearing. Prison officials
intentionally housed him with his enemies. A violent inmate in a
nearby cell makes loud noises that seriously injure Williams and
threaten his life. An inmate shot Williams with a "zip gun." He
was taken to a punishment cell, which contained inmates that have
the AIDS virus, in violation of his due process rights.
An inmate lent Williams a sewing needle to repair his tennis
shoes. Williams alleges this inmate conspired with prison
officials to give him a needle infected with the AIDS virus.
Williams accidentally stuck himself with the needle. He has also
been given infected clothing and sheets.
While Williams is asleep, prison employees put a device on his
chest. He thinks it causes heart attacks.
Prison officials are interfering with his legal and personal
mail and have refused him access to law books. He also claims that
prison officials have blocked his attempts to send letters to the
news media. Williams was refused a shower and meals for two days.

-- 3 of 6 --

4
Medical personnel diagnosed a malady of his without examining him.
He also alleges that he has been denied adequate medical treatment
for a skin condition. Furthermore, the Inmate Trust Fund
overcharged him for supplies, and officers refused to grant him a
"90 day" hearing. Finally, Williams makes an unclear allegation
that his rights under an interstate parole compact plan are being
denied.
The magistrate judge recommended that the suit be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as frivolous and that the IFP status be
denied. Williams moved to amend his complaint to add more
defendants. The magistrate denied the motion for failure to submit
the proposed amendment. Williams objected to the magistrate's
report. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings
and conclusions and dismissed the suit. This appeal followed.
II.
A.
The magistrate judge addressed the claims about toxic gas,
food tainted with the AIDS virus, contaminated peanut butter, the
tainted sewing needle, the device that officials put on his chest
at night, the stabbing, and the sister's forged signature. We
affirm the dismissal of all claims based on these allegations.
An IFP complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct.
1728, 1733 (1992). A delusional, irrational, fantastic, or wholly
incredible claim may be factually frivolous. Allegations that are
merely unlikely, however, are not factually frivolous. Id. The

-- 4 of 6 --

5
standard of review is abuse of discretion. Id. at 1734. We find
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adopting
the magistrate's determination that these allegations are
"irrational and fanciful."
B.
We also affirm the dismissal of some of the claims not
specifically addressed by the district court. Williams has not
stated a constitutional violation with regard to the occasional
denial of meals and showers. See Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765,
771 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1986) (meals); Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417,
418 (5th Cir. 1991) (showers). Furthermore, the Constitution does
not protect Williams from being placed in a cell with his
"enemies." These claims are legally frivolous. See Nietzke v.
Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989).
C.
As to the other allegations not considered by the magistrate
and district court, we must vacate and remand. If Williams was
punished for the "zip gun" incident without due process, the claim
might not be frivolous. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-
56 (1974). Interference with legal mail could also be a serious
claim. Id. at 574-77. Depending on the claim, interference with
non-legal mail, including his complaints that he is denied contact
with news media and that he is overcharged for postage and
supplies, may be a constitutional violation. See Guajardo v
Estelle, 580 F.2d 748, 753-63 (5th Cir. 1978). Denial of access to
law books could be a non-frivolous claim. See Bounds v. Smith, 430

-- 5 of 6 --

6
U.S. 817 , 828 (1977). If prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, he might have a
meritorious claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976).
If, by alleging that he has been denied a "90-day" hearing,
Williams means that his administrative segregation status has not
been reviewed periodically, he could have a non-frivolous claim.
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n.9 (1983). William's reference
to interference with an interstate compact release plan is unclear.
If it refers to his release, it might have to be brought first in
a habeas action. See Serio v. Members of La. State Bd. of Pardons,
821 F.2d 1112, 1117-19 (5th Cir. 1987). We remand for the district
court to consider these claims.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED AND REMANDED in part.

-- 6 of 6 --