Scooter Robinson v. Norris Hogans ( 2018 )

Case: 18-60006 Document: 00514732897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-60006 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 21, 2018
SCOOTER LYNN ROBINSON,
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff-Appellant, Clerk
v.
WARDEN NORRIS HOGANS; VERNELL THOMAS; RAY RICE; MATTHEW
NAIDOW; CHRISTOPHER DYKES; RICHARD RICKS; SERGEANT
QUINCY DUKES; MARYLIN BRAXTON; NAKIA ANDERSON; REGINA
BENDER; JANIE BIRDTAIL; AMY HODGSON; JOSHUA ROBERTS;
SIMONE JONES; ROSEMARY COTTON; MARY DEMPSEY; METINA
STEELE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:15-CV-263
Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Scooter Lynn Robinson, Mississippi prisoner # L1529, moves for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named several defendants and alleged
constitutional violations arising from incidents at the East Mississippi
Correctional Facility where he was imprisoned. The district court granted
summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground that Robinson failed
Case: 18-60006 Document: 00514732897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2018
No. 18-60006
to allege the deprivation of any constitutionally protected interest cognizable
in a § 1983 action.
In this court, Robinson merely repeats the allegations of his complaint
and thus fails to rebut the defendants’ showing that there is no genuine issue
of material fact that would preclude granting judgment for the defendants as
a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc.,
670 F.3d 644, 650 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d
362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that where the moving party has met its initial
burden the nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations but must point
to specific facts and explain how they support his position). Because Robinson
does not address the district court’s reasons for judgment, he thus fails to
identify any non-frivolous issue for appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam). His IFP motion is DENIED, and because it is “apparent that an
appeal would be meritless,” his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761–64 (2015).
Robinson is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be
allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal unless he “is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Robinson is
also WARNED that, aside from the three-strikes IFP bar under § 1915(g),
frivolous filings will subject him to monetary sanctions and limits on his access
to this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
2