Full text
Mixon v. Henderson
No. 95-20713 - 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20713 Summary Calendar
WILLIAM MIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
ROY H. HENDERSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-CA-90-3696 - - - - - - - - - - May 1, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE', and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
William Mixon appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment regarding his claim that Assistant Warden Roy H. Henderson violated his constitutional right to access to the courts when he terminated a legal visit between Mixon and his attorneys’ representative and denied the representative further legal visits. Mixon cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the terminated visit as his attorney was informed that he could conduct legal visits with Mixon or find another legal
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 95-20713 - 2 -
representative for such visits. See Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992). Henderson’s refusal to allow further legal visits with the attorney’s representative in question was properly grounded in security concerns considering the representative’s lying to officials regarding the nature of her relationship with Mixon. See Cruz v. Beto, 603 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir. 1979).
This court warns Mixon that the filing of frivolous appeals could result in sanctions. E.g., Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991). Mixon should review any other appeals pending in this court at this time and move to withdraw any appeal that is frivolous.