King v. One United States Government , 72 F. App'x 198 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         August 20, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-20267
    Conference Calendar
    JAMES H. KING,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    ONE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-03-CV-474
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
    PER CURIAM:*
    James H. King, Texas prisoner # 800742, appeals the district
    court’s dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to
    state a claim, under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii).
    King argues that 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)’s limitations period
    violates the Suspension Clause.    This argument is foreclosed by
    circuit precedent.    Section § 2244(d)’s statute of limitations
    merely alters the procedure for bringing a habeas petition and
    does not unconstitutionally suspend the writ.     Molo v. Johnson,
    
    207 F.3d 773
    , 775 (5th Cir. 2000); Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20267
    -2-
    390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999).   King does not raise or brief his
    equal-protection or comity arguments, and these are deemed
    abandoned.   See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir.
    1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
    King’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED.    5TH CIR.
    R. 42.2.   The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the
    district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim count as
    two “strikes” for purposes of 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g).     See Adepegba
    v. Hammons, 
    103 F.3d 383
    , 388 (5th Cir. 1996).   King is CAUTIONED
    that if he accumulates three “strikes” under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g),
    he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil
    action or appeal filed 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).
    APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-20267

Citation Numbers: 72 F. App'x 198

Judges: Jones, Wiener, Benavides

Filed Date: 8/19/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024