Calloway v. Treon
Calloway v. Treon
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10683 Summary Calendar
JESSIE JAMES CALLOWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
R. R. TREON; J. D. MOONEYHAM; K. R. BRIGHT; L. JAMES; R. KELLIPS; L. R. GAMBLIN; D. M. MORONTZ; D. DOTY; D. L. SHAW; OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, James V. Allred Unit; GRIEVANCE OFFICIALS, James V. Allred Unit; KELLI WARD, Grievance Authority; SUSAN SCHUMACHER; L. TRUHLAN; A. CURRY,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:02-CV-73-R -------------------- December 11, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jessie James Calloway, Texas prisoner # 596563, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
following the district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). By
moving for IFP status, Calloway is challenging the district
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-10683 -2-
court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on
appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh
v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202(5th Cir. 1997).
Calloway has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous
issue on appeal. Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220(5th Cir.
1983); McDonald v. Steward,
132 F.3d 225, 231(5th Cir. 1998);
Johnson v. Rodriguez,
110 F.3d 299, 310(5th Cir. 1997). Because
Calloway has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that his appeal is not taken in good faith, his
request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202& n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Calloway’s motion for the appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
Calloway is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of
this action, and this court’s dismissal of this appeal, both
count as “strikes” pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388(5th Cir. 1996). Calloway is
advised that if he accumulates three strikes, he will be barred
from bringing a civil action or an appeal proceeding IFP unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Calloway is also advised to review any
pending pleadings or appeals to ensure that they do not raise any
frivolous claims.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished