Lightfoot v. Corr Corp of Amer ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30369
Conference Calendar
CHAD LIGHTFOOT ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
CHAD LIGHTFOOT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-2038
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Louisiana prisoner Chad Lightfoot, #301162, appeals from the
grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights
action. Lightfoot contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion for class certification; erred by denying his
motion for a default judgment against defendant Richard Stalder;
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-30369
- 2 -
erred by denying his motion for appointment of an expert witness;
and erred by granting summary judgment for the defendants.
The denial of Lightfoot’s motion for class certification was
not an abuse of discretion. Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d
465, 470 (5th Cir. 1992). Nor was the denial of his motion for a
default judgment; Stalder filed an answer within two weeks after
the entry of default and one day before Lightfoot’s motion for a
default judgment was filed. See Thomas v. Kipperman, 846 f.2d
1009, 1011 (5th Cir. 1988). Nor was the denial of Lightfoot’s
motion for appointment of an expert witness an abuse of
discretion. See Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1006 (5th Cir.
1977).
Regarding the grant of summary judgment, Lightfoot does not
argue his underlying claims on their merits; nor does he link the
evidence he provided in the district court to any of those
claims. He has failed to brief whether the district court erred
by granting summary judgment for the defendants. Grant v.
Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995).
Lightfoot’s appeal is frivolous. We previously warned
Lightfoot that frivolous appeals could result in sanctions
against him. Lightfoot v. Bienvenu, No. 94-CV-411, slip op. at 3
(5th Cir. Aug. 23, 1994). Accordingly, Lightfoot is barred from
filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court
without the prior written approval of an active judge of this
court. Further he is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma
No. 96-30369
- 3 -
pauperis, civil pleading in any court which is subject to this
court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a
judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks
of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of
this court are directed to return to Lightfoot, unfiled, any
attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.