McCallup v. Hoffman ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-60373
    Conference Calendar
    VERONICA MCCALLUP,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    UNKNOWN HOFFMAN, Warden, ET AL.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:02-CV-185-BN
    --------------------
    October 30, 2002
    Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Veronica McCallup, Mississippi state prisoner # K1256,
    appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights action
    as duplicative and therefore malicious.     See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)
    (2)(B)(i).     She asserts that she is seeking relief relative to
    unconstitutional acts which occurred after she had filed her
    prior actions.
    The record in this case, as well as McCallup’s allegations
    and arguments, indicate that she has raised the claims made in
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60373
    -2-
    her instant complaint in her prior lawsuits.    McCallup has failed
    to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in
    dismissing her complaint as malicious, based on its being
    duplicative.     See Bailey v. Johnson, 
    846 F.2d 1019
    , 1021 (5th
    Cir. 1988).
    McCallup is also requesting relief on a number of claims
    that were not raised in her original complaint.    These include
    claims that (1) the appellee hospital performed tests on her in
    retaliation for one of her previous lawsuits; (2) a Doctor
    Culpepper is liable to her as a coconspirator; (3) Lula Wolfe,
    a correctional officer, should be added as a codefendant;
    (4) McCallup has been held in isolation for two years; and
    (5) she should be granted injunctive relief.
    These claims will not be considered on this appeal because
    they were not pleaded in McCallup’s complaint and they do not
    involve purely legal questions.     See Burch v. Coca-Cola Co.,
    
    119 F.3d 305
    , 319 (5th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. Foti, 
    77 F.3d 819
    ,
    822 (5th Cir. 1996).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-60373

Filed Date: 11/4/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021