eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 1998-02

Taylor v. Clinton ( 1998 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40495
Summary Calendar
CHARLIE RAY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President,
United States, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(9:95-CV-375)
January 30, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlie Ray Taylor, Texas prisoner # 334319, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for relief from the district
court’s judgment.     Because Taylor does not raise any arguments
concerning the district court’s dismissal of his complaint or the
district court’s denial of his motion, he has abandoned the only
issue before this court.    See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).   Nonetheless, the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Taylor’s
action for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an
amended complaint and did not abuse its discretion in denying
Taylor’s motion for relief from the judgment.             See Carimi v. Royal
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
    959 F.2d 1344
    , 1345 (5th Cir. 1992).
Taylor’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
See   Howard   v.   King,
    707 F.2d 215
    ,   219-20    (5th   Cir.    1983).
Therefore, Taylor’s appeal is DISMISSED.           5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The district court stated in its memorandum opinion that at
least two prior actions filed by Taylor have been dismissed as
frivolous, and Taylor does not challenge this statement.                 Because
on at least two occasions in addition to this frivolous appeal,
Taylor has brought an action or appeal in a United States court
that was dismissed as frivolous, Taylor is BARRED from proceeding
IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.               See Adepegba
v. Hammons,
    103 F.3d 383
    , 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Taylor
may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.   28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED.
2