Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 93-1765
Summary Calendar.
Danny Ray EASON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Warden THALER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Feb. 10, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Danny Ray Eason, pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 prisoner civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We vacate and remand.
Background
Eason, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, alleges that following a
November 1992 riot he was subjected to "lockdown" without receiving due process, denied access
to a law library and, in light of his religious dietary restrictions, deprived of adequate food for 25
days.1 In dismissing the complaint as frivolous the district court concluded that security interests
require deference to prison officials and that their actions in response to a disturbance rarely violate
the Constitution.2 Eason timely appealed.
Analysis
An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
1Eason presented other issues in his complaint which are not raised in his brief and are
consequently deemed abandoned. Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.1986), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Ct. 897, 93 L.Ed.2d 848 (1987).
2The court did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice; we therefore
presume that the instant action was dismissed under section 1915(d) without prejudice. Graves v.
Hampton, 1 F.3d 315 (5th Cir.1993).

in law or fact.3 Should it appear that insufficient factual allegations might be remedies by more
specific pleading, we must consider whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the
complaint either with prejudice or without any effort to amend.4 The principal vehicles which have
evolved for remedying inadequacy in prisoner pleadings are the Spears hearing and a questionnaire
to "bring into focus the factual and legal bases of prisoners' claims."5 The court à quo used neither.
We must determine whether Eason's allegations, if developed by a questionnaire or in a
Spears dialog, might have presented a nonfrivolous section 1983 claim. We conclude that further
development of Eason's allegations is required before a proper section 1915(d) dismissal may be
imposed.
Eason first alleges a violation of due process, claiming that after two inmate disturbances the
entire prison was placed o n lockdown. His building continued on lockdown for 12 days after the
restriction was lifted for the rest of the prison. Eason claims that although he was not party to the
disturbances he was placed in lockdown for 25 days without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Even though a lockdown rarely will require more than informal review, some process arguably was
due Eason6 and, given the limited information before us, we cannot determine whether it was
provided.
Eason argues next that he was denied access to the prison law library during the lockdown.
Though such right s may be narrowed without constitutional difficulty, especially in the wake of a
riot,7 if Eason was pursuing a legal action which made the use of a law library necessary and all access
3Denton v. Hernandez, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
4Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1734.
5Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1985). These options are, of course,
unnecessary in cases where the facts alleged are "fantastic or delusional scenarios" or the legal
theory upon which a complaint relies is "indisputably meritless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
6Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 460 (1983); McCrae v. Hankins,
720 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.1983); Mitchell v. Sheriff Dept., Lubbock County, Tex., 995 F.2d 60 (5th
Cir.1993).
7See, e.g., Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589 (7th Cir.1986) (holding that during a post-riot
lockdown, refusal of access to main law library is constitutional as long as access to "basic law

was nonetheless denied, this deprivation constitutionally might be cognizable.8
Finally, Eason claims prison officials violated his right to the appropriate exercise of his
Muslim religion by providing him only pork to eat during the lockdown. Eason alleges that prison
officials told him to eat the pork or nothing, that he received only three nonpork hot meals during the
25-day lockdown, and that he subsisted on peanut butter biscuits. Prison officials have a
constitutional obligation to provide reasonably adequate food9 and, absent some legitimate
penological interest preventing the accommodation of a prisoner's religious restrictions,10 food which
is anathema to an inmate because of his religion is at least arguably inadequate.
With further factual development and specificity these allegations may pass section 1915(d)
muster. None is pure fantasy or based upon a legally inarguable proposition. The district court
abused its discretion by dismissing Eason's complaint without providing an opportunity for Eason to
offer a more detailed set of factual claims.11
VACATED and REMANDED.

library" for initial legal research is permitted).
8Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977).
9George v. King, 837 F.2d 705 (5th Cir.1988).
10Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.1992).
11Cf. Graves.