eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-11

Williams v. Hoff ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10212
Conference Calendar
JAMES KEITH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOANNA K. HOFF; CHADWICK A. NORTHCUTT; BETTY A. GANUS;
RAYMOND E. RAMSEY; STEVE L. PATTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CV-224-R
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Keith Williams, Texas prisoner #631673, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s
determination pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (a)(3) that his appeal
was taken in bad faith.    Williams lists four issues for appeal,
but he does not discuss any of those issues beyond merely stating
them.    Nor does Williams argue whether the district court erred
by dismissing his civil rights claims pursuant to Heck v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10212
-2-
Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok,
    520 U.S. 641
     (1997), or whether the district court erred by dismissing any
habeas corpus claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust
state remedies.    Williams has failed to brief any issues for
appeal.   Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Moreover, Williams’s civil rights claims were frivolous, see
Clarke v. Stalder,
    154 F.3d 186
    , 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc),
and the district court correctly dismissed any habeas claims for
failure to exhaust state remedies.     See
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (b)(1)(A).    Williams’s appeal is without arguable merit and
is frivolous.     See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir.
1983).
The district court’s dismissal of Williams’s action and our
dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes for purposes of
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).    Williams is warned that should he
accumulate three strikes for purposes of
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) he
will be unable to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal
unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.