# Mitchell v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 18, 1995 · 77 F.3d 475

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8355

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 18, 1995
- **Citations:** 77 F.3d 475; 1995 WL 798524
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8355

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40513
Conference Calendar
__________________

ROBERT WAYNE MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK L. BROWN, Sgt. of High Security
at Michael Unit,
HEROD NICHERSON, JR., CO III in High Security
at Michael Unit,
JIMMY E. ALFORD, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-714
- - - - - - - - - -
December 20, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert W. Mitchell, a prisoner of the State of Texas,

appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his

civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Mitchell

argues that his punishment for not obeying an order to remove his

hands from his pockets violated due process because he did not

*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of
well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the
public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that
Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
No. 95-40513
-2-

have fair warning and that the officers' conduct violated the

Eighth Amendment because he suffered psychological injury. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Mitchell's motion to amend his

complaint is DENIED.

On appeal, Mitchell can present no legal points arguable on

their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution

Mitchell that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Mitchell

is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8355. Public record. Not legal advice.