Downs
This text of Downs (Downs) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________
No. 95-50282 Conference Calendar __________________
DAMON HENRY DOWNS,
Petitioner - Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-114 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In a proceeding in the district court, Damon Henry Downs
sent a graphic threat of death by bombing to the district judge.
He directed it and prior threats to that judge in particular and
to the judiciary generally. Downs's numerous convictions for
arson lead us to take the threat seriously. Accordingly, with
only slight exception, we close the courthouse doors in this
circuit to Downs's abusive pleadings, letters, and other
communications.
Downs may file no initial pleading in this court or in any
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. No. 95-50282 -2-
court subject to the jurisdiction of this court, except with the
advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. Before
filing any appeal or other action in this court, Downs shall
submit to the clerk of this court a request for permission to
file, together with the document that he proposes to file, which
the clerk shall direct to an active judge of this court. In
requesting the required permission in this court or in any court
in this circuit, Downs shall inform the court of the bar stated
herein.
The court in the Western District of Texas imposed on Downs
sanctions that are more onerous than the sanction that we impose
here. As Downs does not challenge the district court's
sanctions, they are not before us for review. See, e.g., Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). As an
exception to the circuit-wide bar described above, the sanction
that we impose today shall become effective in the Western
District of Texas only if and when the more onerous sanctions
already in force there are withdrawn.
In requesting leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
(IFP), Downs challenges the district court's refusal of leave for
him to file a civil rights suit attacking a change in the way
that Texas prisoners accrue good time. An amendment to a state's
parole eligibility procedure is not an ex post facto law.
California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 115 S. Ct. 1597, 1599
(1995). Such a change is not subject to a civil rights challenge
because it affects only a hope of release. Gilbertson v. Texas
Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 993 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1993). The No. 95-50282 -3-
appeal is frivolous. It is dismissed as such. See 5th Cir. R.
42.2.
IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED, SANCTION IMPOSED. The clerk
is directed to distribute this opinion to all clerks of court in
this circuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Downs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downs-ca5-1995.