Dugas v. Scott ( 2021 )

Case: 20-20210 Document: 00515952627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 26, 2021
No. 20-20210
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jarvis Dugas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Travis Scott; Rock Nation, Record Label; Damon Dash;
Drake, The Houston Rapper,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-3877
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jarvis Dugas, Texas prisoner # 1386881, moves for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of Dugas’s putative
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the denial of post-judgment
motions. He also moves for appointment of counsel.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20210 Document: 00515952627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2021
No. 20-20210
Due to the timing of Dugas’s post-judgment motions and his notice of
appeal, we have jurisdiction to consider only a February 27, 2020, denial of a
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. See United States v. One
1988 Dodge Pickup, 959 F.2d 37, 39 (5th Cir. 1992); Eleby v. American Medical
Systems, 795 F.2d 411, 412-413 (5th Cir. 1986); cf. Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co.,
372 F.3d 326, 329 n.2 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining the relationship between
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) and Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i)).
Dugas fails to identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
McGarrah v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). His putative § 1983
claims are frivolous because he fails to assert any deprivation of constitutional
rights “by a person acting under color of state law.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726
F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
His state law claims are vague, conclusional, and without any clearly stated
legal or factual basis.
Because the appeal has no arguable merit, it is DISMISSED as
frivolous. The motions to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel are
DENIED. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court's
dismissal for failure to state a claim each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). A prior strike
was imposed by the district court in October 2019. Because Dugas now has
accumulated a total of three strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding 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
§ 1915(g).
IFP DENIED; APPOINTED COUNSEL DENIED;
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.
2