Scercy v. TX Bd of Cr Justice ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20637
Summary Calendar
GREGORY LYNN SCERCY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-4339
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20641
Summary Calendar
GREGORY LYNN SCERCY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-1547
June 29, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
Gregory Lynn Scercy, Texas inmate #458066, presents two
appeals and a motion for reinstatement of a third appeal.
In No. 99-20637, Scercy appeals the district court's denial of
his injunctive relief and to compel discovery in his civil rights
suit against the Texas Board of Criminal Justice. Scercy filed
motions for protective orders and to compel discovery. The
district court construed the former as a request for injunctive
relief, denying the request for failure to make the required
showing of irreparable harm. The court denied the motion to compel
discovery because the defendants had not been served and discovery
was premature.
In No. 99-20641, Scercy appeals the district court's dismissal
without prejudice of his civil rights claim against the State of
Louisiana and a New Orleans police officer over events that
allegedly occurred in 1976. The district court dismissed his
complaint because it was filed in the wrong forum, and the court
did not transfer the case to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana because it determined that the
one-year statute of limitations under Louisiana law had clearly
expired.
In addition to the briefs Scercy filed in these appeals, he
has filed numerous other documents that we construe as motions to
file supplemental briefs. We GRANT these motions and consider
those supplemental briefs in these consolidated appeals.
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
The briefs Scercy has filed address a variety of his concerns
but fail to argue that there was error by either district court in
either case. An appellant's brief must contain his contentions and
supporting reasons. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). We liberally
construe the filings of pro se appellants, but these must
nevertheless brief issues to preserve them for appeal. See Grant
v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Scercy has preserved
no issue for appeal.
Neither appeal has arguable merit, and we DISMISS these
consolidated appeals as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Scercy had two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in
Scercy v. Collins, No. 98-41548 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 1999). Scercy
now has three strikes under § 1915(g), so he may not proceed in
forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury.
The appeal in No. 99-20937 sought review of the denial of his
motion to proceed under § 2255, which Scercy presented during the
proceedings in his civil rights case against the Texas Board of
Criminal Justice, No. 99-20637. The appeal in No. 99-20937 was
dismissed for failure to pay the docketing fee, and that defect has
not been cured by paying the fee or by filing a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Scercy's motion to reinstate the appeal
in No. 99-20937 is DENIED.
3
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTION
IMPOSED; MOTIONS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS GRANTED; MOTION TO
REINSTATE APPEAL DENIED; ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
4