Darrell Hall v. Ana Sanchez, et al, No. 13-20450 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-20450 Document: 00512695335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-20450 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 11, 2014 DARRELL LEE HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ANA A. SANCHEZ, Security Threat Group Sargeant; DOUGLASS B. REYNOLDS; THOMAS W. BOUGHNER, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-1993 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darrell Lee Hall, Texas prisoner # 1330580, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Hall contends that his due process rights were violated when false disciplinary charges were filed against him; his request to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing was denied; he was found guilty of the disciplinary violation on insufficient evidence; and he lost commissary and recreation privileges for seven days. He further contends that the district court should 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 13-20450 Document: 00512695335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 No. 13-20450 not have dismissed his complaint with prejudice without first giving him the opportunity to amend. Hall s arguments regarding the disciplinary charge, proceeding, and punishment do not present a cognizable constitutional claim. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). Hall also fails to explain how he would have amended his complaint to include a legally cognizable claim. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his complaint without permitting him to amend it. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). Hall s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hall s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212, 213 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court s dismissal of Hall s complaint as frivolous and our dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hall is hereby cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 2
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.
