Grable v. Harris County District Clerks Office

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20773
Conference Calendar
CHARLES L. GRABLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERKS OFFICE;
CHARLES BACARISSE, Clerk;
UNKNOWN DEPUTY DISTRICT CLERKS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-2943
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles L. Grable, Texas prisoner #839605, appeals from the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. Grable
contends that his right of access to the courts has been violated
because the state-court Clerk has refused to serve the attorney
representing the State in Grable’s state habeas actions.
Grable does not allege that he has been deprived of his
ability to prepare and transmit any legal documents to any court.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20773
-2-
He therefore has not alleged a nonfrivolous claim of deprivation
of the right of access to the courts. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3
F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to provide Grable with the equitable relief
he sought. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474
F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973). The district court did not
err by dismissing the action as frivolous. See Harris v.
Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
Grable’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed
as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the
current case and this court’s dismissal of the appeal count as
two strikes against Grable for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
Grable is warned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may
not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal
unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.