Carlos Toombs v. Dianna Massingill

Fifth Circuit

Carlos Toombs v. Dianna Massingill

647 F. App'x 425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2016

Docket15-10177

StatusUnpublished

This text of 647 F. App'x 425 (Carlos Toombs v. Dianna Massingill) 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

Carlos Toombs v. Dianna Massingill, 647 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Wayne Toombs, Texas prisoner # 1109593, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and malicious. According to Toombs, the district court erred in determining that the claims in his complaint were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and thus frivolous. We find no abuse of discretion in the determination because the complaint seeks monetary damages from defense counsel, the prosecutor, and two police officers “for the unjustified deprivation of [Toombs’s] life, liberty and property” but does not allege that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, set aside, or otherwise undermined. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir.1994). Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the complaint, which was duplicative of a prior § 1983 suit, was malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988). Further, Toombs fails to assert or demonstrate any error'in the district court’s rejection of his DNA testing claim, which he raised in a postjudgment motion. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011); Disk Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009).

The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motions for an evidentiary hearing and to compel the production of evidence are DENIED. We previously warned Toombs that he had two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court’s dismissal of his complaint in this ease, as well as oür dismissal of this appeal, count as additional strikes. See Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Because Toombs has accumulated more than three strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action while he is incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

*

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: *

Carlos Wayne Toombs, Texas prisoner # 1109593, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and malicious. According to Toombs, the district court erred in determining that the claims in his complaint were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and thus frivolous. We find no abuse of discretion in the determination because the complaint seeks monetary damages from defense counsel, the prosecutor, and two police officers “for the unjustified deprivation of [Toombs’s] life, liberty and property” but does not allege that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, set aside, or otherwise undermined. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir.1994). Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the complaint, which was duplicative of a prior § 1983 suit, was malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988). Further, Toombs fails to assert or demonstrate any error'in the district court’s rejection of his DNA testing claim, which he raised in a postjudgment motion. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011); Disk Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009).

The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motions for an evidentiary hearing and to compel the production of evidence are DENIED. We previously warned Toombs that he had two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court’s dismissal of his complaint in this ease, as well as oür dismissal of this appeal, count as additional strikes. See Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Because Toombs has accumulated more than three strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action while he is incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

*

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)

647 F. App'x 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-toombs-v-dianna-massingill-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack