King v. Richardson ( 2022 )

Case: 21-20593 Document: 00516259184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 29, 2022
No. 21-20593
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Vernon King, Jr.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Jeffery S. Richardson; Terry Bursoh, Assistant Warden;
Tracy Hutto, Assistant Warden; Ms. Alla, Mailroom Supervisor,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-2952
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Vernon King, Jr., Texas prisoner # 590316, moves for authorization to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). King has failed to show that he should
be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under § 1915(g) or that his appeal of the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20593 Document: 00516259184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-20593
district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Banos v. O’Guin,
144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
Cir. 1982). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. King’s motion to
appoint counsel likewise is denied.
The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined
with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24
(5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed
as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2
The district court in which King filed his instant complaint previously
sanctioned him $200 and barred him from filing further suits without first
receiving permission from a judicial officer. See King v. Carter, No. 4:17-CV-
832 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017) (unpublished). There is no indication that
King paid the sanction or received permission to file the instant complaint.
In light of King’s history, he is ordered to pay a sanction of $300 to the clerk
of court, and he is barred from filing any pleading in this court or any court
subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full, unless he
obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. King is
warned that the filing of repetitive or frivolous pleadings in this court or any
court subject to this court’s jurisdiction could result in additional sanctions.
He is directed to review all pending matters and to move to dismiss any that
are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
2