Rauch v. Castro
Rauch v. Castro
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10541 Conference Calendar
WARREN G. RAUCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RAYNALDO CASTRO; MARYANN MUNSELL; HUGH BRYAN; TOMMY E. PARKS; VICTOR BROOKS,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:02-CV-84 -------------------- December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren G. Rauch, Texas prisoner # 736714 (“Rauch”), appeals
the dismissal of his pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") lawsuit
filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed
the suit as frivolous because Rauch, by his own admission, had
failed to exhaust the prison grievance process prior to filing
suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and therefore the suit
sought relief to which Rauch was not entitled.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-10541 -2-
The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint
as frivolous for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See
Underwood v. Wilson,
151 F.3d 292, 294(5th Cir. 1997). The
district court correctly ordered that dismissal was with
prejudice to refiling with IFP status. See Underwood,
151 F.3d at 296.
This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus 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.
The district court’s dismissal as frivolous and this court’s
dismissal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of the
three-strikes provision. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Adepegba
v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388(5th Cir. 1996). Rauch is WARNED
that should he accumulate three strikes he will be unable to
proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished