eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-12

Dugas v. USA ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-40329     Document: 00516133012         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                         United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-40329                  December 15, 2021
Summary Calendar                   Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jarvis Dugas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
The United States of America; The State of Texas; The
Judicial System of Texas; The Southern District of
Texas Court House; Ken Paxton; Magistrate Judge
Janice B. Ellington; Erick Echavarry; Donna
Plannstiel; David J. Bradley; United States District
Judge Hilda G. Tagle; Pfannstiel Donnal,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CV-302
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40329       Document: 00516133012         Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/15/2021
No. 20-40329
Jarvis Dugas, Texas prisoner # 1386881, filed this
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action in connection with his two prior civil cases. The district court
dismissed his claims as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Dugas timely
appealed.
In his brief, Dugas does not challenge the district court’s conclusions
that his claims were frivolous and failed to state a claim. He has therefore
abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v.
Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because
he has not shown “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment
of counsel, his motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See
Baranowski v. Hart,
    486 F.3d 112
    , 126 (5th Cir. 2007); Cupit v. Jones,
    835 F.2d 82
    , 86 (5th Cir. 1987); Ulmer v. Chancellor,
    691 F.2d 209
    , 212 (5th Cir.
1982).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to a prior
decision that we issued while this appeal was pending, Dugas remains barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed in a court
of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g); Dugas v. Scott, 853 F. App’x 998, 999 (5th Cir. 2021). He is
WARNED that any pending or future frivolous or repetitive filings in this
court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction may subject him to
additional sanctions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2