eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2004-02

Glover v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles , 88 F. App'x 720 ( 2004 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20898
Conference Calendar
KENNETH WAYNE GLOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-384
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Glover, TDCJ-ID # 1198161, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.
He challenges the district court’s certification that in forma
pauperis (IFP) status should not be granted on appeal because the
appeal is not taken in good faith.    See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20898
-2-
Glover’s claims involve various policies and procedures of
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles that have resulted in his
repeated reincarcerations.    A favorable ruling on Glover’s claims
would call into question the validity of his parole revocations.
The district court’s determination that Glover may not obtain
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 until his parole revocation is
reversed or otherwise called into question was not erroneous.
See Heck v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (1994); Littles v.
Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div.,
    68 F.3d 122
    , 123 (5th Cir.
1995); Siglar v. Hightower,
    112 F.3d 191
    , 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Glover has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues.    We also DENY
Glover’s motions for en banc hearing and for an evidentiary
hearing.   Glover’s appeal is without arguable merit and is
frivolous.   See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983).   Therefore, his appeal is DISMISSED.   See
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 
    n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal of Glover’s complaint as frivolous each count as a
strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).    See Adepegba v. Hammons,
    103 F.3d 383
    , 387 (5th Cir. 1996).    Because Glover’s prior
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint also was dismissed as frivolous by the
district court, that dismissal also counts as a strike.    See id.;
No. 03-20898
-3-
Glover v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, No. H-01-51
(S.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2001).    Because he has accumulated three
strikes, Glover may no longer proceed IFP 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).
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
SANCTIONS IMPOSED.