Charles Wallace, Sr. v. State of Louisiana
689 F. App'x 286
5th Cir.2017Background
- Charles K. Wallace, Sr., a Louisiana prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
- Wallace challenged the prison’s no-smoking policy and raised multiple constitutional claims: ex post facto, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of association.
- He also raised other arguments on appeal: a challenge to Louisiana Act 815 (first raised on appeal), reliance on a prior Fifth Circuit decision for a claimed right to smoke, and procedural objections (denial of discovery, magistrate judge authority, dismissal without prejudice).
- The district court dismissed his complaint; the Fifth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the dismissal as reasonable and largely frivolous or abandoned.
- The Fifth Circuit treated the dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), noted Wallace already had at least two prior strikes, and barred him from proceeding in forma pauperis while incarcerated unless facing imminent danger.
- The court warned Wallace that future frivolous, repetitive, or abusive filings could prompt sanctions, including dismissal, fines, and filing restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of no-smoking policy under § 1983 (ex post facto) | Wallace: policy punished him retroactively or violated ex post facto protections | State: policy is a valid prison regulation; no ex post facto violation shown | Dismissal affirmed — no error in rejecting ex post facto claim |
| First Amendment claims (religion, speech, association) | Wallace: policy infringed religious expression, speech, and association rights | State: policy permissible regulation of prison conduct | Dismissal affirmed — claims insufficient/noncognizable |
| Equal protection challenge | Wallace: policy discriminates against him | State: regulation is neutral and rationally related to penological objectives | Dismissal affirmed — claim fails to state a constitutional violation |
| New statutory challenge to Act 815 raised on appeal | Wallace: Act 815 (2006) is unconstitutional and governs smoking in public buildings | State: issue was not raised below; procedural default | Court declined to consider it (raised first on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.) (prison regulation analysis)
- Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards for frivolous pleadings)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues raised first on appeal are forfeited)
- Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (conclusory assertions may be frivolous)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (dismissal as a § 1915(g) "strike")
- Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988) (authority to sanction repetitive/frivolous prisoners)