Robinson v. Johnson
Robinson v. Johnson
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20977 Conference Calendar
TEDDY ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; FRANK HOKE; JOHN DOES, Various,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-2261 -------------------- April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Teddy Robinson, Texas state prisoner #506648, appeals from a
dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Robinson
alleges that his constitutional right of access to the courts was
denied by the defendants' failure to timely procure a copy of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
which he argues resulted in the dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. §2254petition as time-barred.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-20977 -2-
Robinson was granted a COA to appeal that judgment on the
question whether the prison library’s failure to timely obtain
the AEDPA was a state-created impediment. That appeal is
pending. Robinson v. Johnson, No. 00-10011.
An inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must
demonstrate a “relevant actual injury” stemming from the
defendants’ unconstitutional conduct. Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 351(1996). A prisoner lacks standing to bring a claim
where he cannot establish “relevant actual injury.” See
id. at 349-351.
To the extent that Robinson is asking us to review the
judgment of the district court dismissing his habeas petition as
time-barred, he cannot do so via his
42 U.S.C. § 1983suit. To
the extent that he seeks damages for loss of his right to pursue
his federal habeas action, he lacks standing because this court
has yet to rule on the merits of that appeal. We therefore
affirm the dismissal of his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished