Franklin v. Rodriquez

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 10, 2003
Docket02-40491
StatusUnpublished

This text of Franklin v. Rodriquez (Franklin v. Rodriquez) 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
Franklin v. Rodriquez, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40491

ISAAC FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VICTOR RODRIQUEZ, Chairman, Board of Pardons and Parole; GERALD GARRETT, Board Member; BRENDOLYN ROGERS GARDNER, Board Member; W.G. “BILLY” WALKER, Board Member,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (6:99-CV-83) _________________________________________________________________ February 10, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaac Franklin, Texas prisoner #557634, appeals, pro se, from

the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and subsequent 59(e) motions

seeking reimbursement of court costs and fees. Given the benefit

of liberal construction, Franklin errorously maintains he was

entitled to such reimbursement because he voluntarily dismissed his

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 654

(5th Cir. 2000); see also Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1128

(5th Cir. 1997). Franklin has not shown the district court abused

its discretion. See Eleby v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 795 F.2d

411, 413 (5th Cir. 1986).

To the extent Franklin is attempting to challenge the district

court’s September 1999 and December 2000 orders, he may not do so

in this appeal. Because these orders were not at issue in

Franklin’s Rule 60(b) motion, they are not at issue here. See

Aucoin v. K-Mart Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED

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

Related

Williams v. Roberts
116 F.3d 1126 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Hatchet v. Nettles
201 F.3d 651 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Franklin v. Rodriquez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-rodriquez-ca5-2003.