Charles v. Cockrell

Fifth Circuit

Charles v. Cockrell

202 F. App'x 48

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 2006

Docket05-51316

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 F. App'x 48 (Charles v. Cockrell) 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

Charles v. Cockrell, 202 F. App'x 48 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Shirley Charles, a Texas inmate, appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Charles’s claims surrounding her disciplinary conviction for extortion are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87,114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). Charles’s case is distinguishable from Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004), insofar as she asked the district court to expunge the extortion disciplinary conviction from her record. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Charles relief from its judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.2000); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir.1986). Finally, Charles fails to state a claim for retaliation, because she has neither supplied evidence of motivation nor adequately alleged a chronology of events that would allow a plausible inference of retaliation. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1996).

Charles’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). It is therefore dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The instant appeal was pending when this court imposed a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) three-strikes bar against Charles. See Charles v. Nance, 186 Fed.Appx. 494 (5th Cir.2006). That bar remains in effect as to civil actions and appeals filed in forma pauperis. Although Charles has paid the filing fees in this case, she is warned that the future filing of frivolous appeals in this court may result in additional sanctions, which may include monetary penalties. *49 See Goldgar v. Office of Admin., Executive Office of the President, 26 F.3d 32, 36 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT; WARNED ABOUT MONETARY SANCTIONS.

*

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: *

Shirley Charles, a Texas inmate, appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Charles’s claims surrounding her disciplinary conviction for extortion are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87,114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). Charles’s case is distinguishable from Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004), insofar as she asked the district court to expunge the extortion disciplinary conviction from her record. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Charles relief from its judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.2000); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir.1986). Finally, Charles fails to state a claim for retaliation, because she has neither supplied evidence of motivation nor adequately alleged a chronology of events that would allow a plausible inference of retaliation. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1996).

Charles’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). It is therefore dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The instant appeal was pending when this court imposed a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) three-strikes bar against Charles. See Charles v. Nance, 186 Fed.Appx. 494 (5th Cir.2006). That bar remains in effect as to civil actions and appeals filed in forma pauperis. Although Charles has paid the filing fees in this case, she is warned that the future filing of frivolous appeals in this court may result in additional sanctions, which may include monetary penalties. *49 See Goldgar v. Office of Admin., Executive Office of the President, 26 F.3d 32, 36 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT; WARNED ABOUT MONETARY SANCTIONS.

*

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)

202 F. App'x 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-cockrell-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack