Baggett v. United States Congress

Fifth Circuit

Baggett v. United States Congress

282 F. App'x 350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 2008

Docket07-20845

StatusUnpublished

This text of 282 F. App'x 350 (Baggett v. United States Congress) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baggett v. United States Congress, 282 F. App'x 350 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Richard H. Baggett, Texas prisoner # 507596, appeals the dismissal of his Bivens 1 suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). The district court held that Baggett’s claims were barred by the doctrine of legislative immunity and, alternatively, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Baggett has failed to assign error to or brief these issues. His failure to brief the dispositive issues has waived their review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Baggett has instead moved for appointment of counsel, consolidation of the instant case with a habeas action, supplementation of the record, and transcripts at the government’s expense. This court has previously denied Baggett the appointment of counsel in this case. Baggett v. United States Congress, No. 07-20845 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2008) (unpublished). Given that he has not shown that his appeal has arguable merit, all of Baggett’s outstanding motions are denied.

Because Baggett’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dis *351 missal of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 108 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Baggett is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Richard H. Baggett, Texas prisoner # 507596, appeals the dismissal of his Bivens 1 suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). The district court held that Baggett’s claims were barred by the doctrine of legislative immunity and, alternatively, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Baggett has failed to assign error to or brief these issues. His failure to brief the dispositive issues has waived their review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Baggett has instead moved for appointment of counsel, consolidation of the instant case with a habeas action, supplementation of the record, and transcripts at the government’s expense. This court has previously denied Baggett the appointment of counsel in this case. Baggett v. United States Congress, No. 07-20845 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2008) (unpublished). Given that he has not shown that his appeal has arguable merit, all of Baggett’s outstanding motions are denied.

Because Baggett’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dis *351 missal of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 108 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Baggett is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

1

. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F. App'x 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baggett-v-united-states-congress-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack