Jones v. Hudnell, et al, No. 05-11398 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11398 Summary Calendar MARK ANTHONY JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LYDIA HUDNELL; WILLIAM MABRY, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CV-285 -------------------Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mark Anthony Jones, Texas prisoner # 515060, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Jones raised various claims for relief based on the defendants roles in refusing to allow him to bring his personal property on a prison transport bus. We review the district court s dismissal de novo. See Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2003). Jones alleged that the defendants action resulted in a denial of access to the courts; Jones has failed to adequately brief this * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-11398 -2issue on appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Jones also argues that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. We do not consider this argument; the district court did not dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. Jones asserts retaliation. that the defendants actions constituted Because Jones cannot show that the allegedly adverse act constituted more than a de minimis injury, he has failed to state a valid retaliation claim. Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 685-86 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (Sep. 18, 2006) (No. 06-6798). Jones asserts that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical limitations, which restricted the amount of weight that he could safely carry. Jones, however, concedes that after he complained to prison officials, the number of items he was required limitations. indifference. to Jones carry has was not reduced stated a due claim to of his medical deliberate See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Jones asserts that the defendants violated prison policies that allowed prisoners to carry one bag of personal property onto the transport bus. A violation of prison regulations, without more, does not give rise to a federal constitutional violation. Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). Jones No. 05-11398 -3also asserts that he was the victim of disparate treatment. Jones has not shown that he was intentionally treated differently, without a rational basis for the distinction, from similarly situated inmates. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Jones raised several state law claims, which the district court declined to consider. 246 (5th Cir. 1999). Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Jones s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court s dismissal of the § 1983 suit and this dismissal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (5th Cir. 1996). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 Jones is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in incarcerated any or civil detained action in or any appeal facility imminent danger of serious physical injury. filed while unless he is See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. he is under
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
