Donalson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Donalson v. United States

103 F. App'x 839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 2004

Docket04-10213

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 F. App'x 839 (Donalson v. United States) 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

Donalson v. United States, 103 F. App'x 839 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Barney Joe Donalson, Jr., a/k/a Damon Downs, Texas prisoner #423754, has re *840 ceived permission to appeal the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him. To the extent that he challenges the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, he has not received permission to do this and we will not consider these claims.

Donalson asserts that the district court erred in ordering him to pay $100 because he has been deprived of the ability to use his prison funds. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in imposing such a sanction. See Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir.1998).

Donalson also challenges the district court’s injunction barring him from filing a lawsuit, civil action, or habeas corpus petition in the Northern District of Texas or in any other court where the case could be removed or transferred to the Northern District of Texas. “[T]he imposition of sanctions must not result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the courts.” Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882 n. 23 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). We have found no authority approving a blanket prohibition on all filings in the district court.

Rather than remanding the case for modification of the sanctions order, however, acting under our general supervisory power, we MODIFY the sanctions imposed by the district court and ORDER that: Donalson is barred from filing in the Northern District of Texas any document that attempts to challenge the commencement day of his federal sentence vis a vis his potential release from state custody on mandatory supervision. This provision augments the earlier sanction requiring Donalson to obtain permission to file any initial pleading in the district courts subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See In re Downs, No. 95-50282 (5th Cir. June 27, 1995)(unpublished).

The sanctions imposed are therefore AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *840 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: *

Barney Joe Donalson, Jr., a/k/a Damon Downs, Texas prisoner #423754, has re *840 ceived permission to appeal the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him. To the extent that he challenges the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, he has not received permission to do this and we will not consider these claims.

Donalson asserts that the district court erred in ordering him to pay $100 because he has been deprived of the ability to use his prison funds. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in imposing such a sanction. See Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir.1998).

Donalson also challenges the district court’s injunction barring him from filing a lawsuit, civil action, or habeas corpus petition in the Northern District of Texas or in any other court where the case could be removed or transferred to the Northern District of Texas. “[T]he imposition of sanctions must not result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the courts.” Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882 n. 23 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). We have found no authority approving a blanket prohibition on all filings in the district court.

Rather than remanding the case for modification of the sanctions order, however, acting under our general supervisory power, we MODIFY the sanctions imposed by the district court and ORDER that: Donalson is barred from filing in the Northern District of Texas any document that attempts to challenge the commencement day of his federal sentence vis a vis his potential release from state custody on mandatory supervision. This provision augments the earlier sanction requiring Donalson to obtain permission to file any initial pleading in the district courts subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See In re Downs, No. 95-50282 (5th Cir. June 27, 1995)(unpublished).

The sanctions imposed are therefore AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *840 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)

103 F. App'x 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donalson-v-united-states-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack