Boyd v. Winters

Fifth Circuit

Boyd v. Winters

112 F. App'x 366

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

Docket04-10879

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F. App'x 366 (Boyd v. Winters) 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

Boyd v. Winters, 112 F. App'x 366 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Burns Tilton Boyd, Texas prisoner # 1158136, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s denial of IFP and dismissal of his complaint because he is barred by the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Boyd alleges that he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury because a fellow inmate assaulted him and the defendants are deliberately indifferent. Prison grievances submitted by Boyd show, however, that the inmate in question is no longer being housed in the same building as Boyd.

Boyd fails to meet the showing required to avoid application of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir.1998). His motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the district court properly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Boyd’s appeal is without merit and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Burns Tilton Boyd, Texas prisoner # 1158136, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s denial of IFP and dismissal of his complaint because he is barred by the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Boyd alleges that he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury because a fellow inmate assaulted him and the defendants are deliberately indifferent. Prison grievances submitted by Boyd show, however, that the inmate in question is no longer being housed in the same building as Boyd.

Boyd fails to meet the showing required to avoid application of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir.1998). His motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the district court properly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Boyd’s appeal is without merit and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. App'x 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-winters-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack