eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2000-02

Moore v. King ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                             No. 98-10720
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES -COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10720
Conference Calendar
CHARLES EDWARD MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ED KING, Judge; ALYSIA ANN HEROD; U.S. ATTORNEY;
JOHN HEROD, III; ASHLEY HEROD; MARY ELLEN YOUNG,
Defendants-Appellees,
JOHN MOORE,
Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-682-P
- - - - - - - - - -
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Edward Moore, Texas prisoner #824496, appeals from
the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his federal
constitutional rights under color of state law.    Moore has failed
to allege that the district court erred by dismissing his claims
as to all of the defendants except Judge King and Judge Young.
He has abandoned his appeal as to these unargued claims.     See
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-10720
-2-
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    ,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).   Moore’s remaining claims lack arguable
merit because they are barred by the doctrine of judicial
immunity or fail to allege a violation of Moore’s federal
constitutional rights.   See Mays v. Sudderth,
    97 F.3d 107
    , 110-11
(5th Cir. 1996)(judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts
performed in judicial proceedings even if the action taken was in
error, done maliciously, or exceeded his authority, unless the
act was taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction).
Moore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.   See 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.   Moore’s motions for appointment of counsel, a temporary
restraining order, and declaratory relief are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.