Pittman v. Hall
Pittman v. Hall
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40756 Conference Calendar
LEO L. PITTMAN ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
LEO L. PITTMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHERMAN B. HALL, JR.; EMORY J. SHERIFF OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, Sheriff; DAVID HEAD, County Commissioner; JACK PATTERSON, County Commissioner; JAMES C. LAWSON, County Commissioner; RICHARD DIX, Captain,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-97-CV-167 --------------------
December 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leo L. Pittman, TDCJ #718254, appeals the dismissal of his
pro se
42 U.S.C. § 1983civil rights suit as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Pittman fails to properly brief any
issues for appeal, and, thus, all issues are waived. See Hidden
Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin,
138 F.3d 1036, 1045 n.6 (5th Cir.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-40756 -2-
1998); Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225(5th Cir. 1993).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pittman is
warned that the dismissal of his claim by the district court as
frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387(5th Cir. 1996)
(“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court
of appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of [§ 1915(g)].”).
We caution Pittman that once he accumulates three strikes, he may
not proceed in forma pauperis 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
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished