Harmon v. TDCJ - Inst Div
This text of Harmon v. TDCJ - Inst Div (Harmon v. TDCJ - Inst Div) 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. 97-41512 Summary Calendar
LEONARD B. HARMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Michael Unit,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-825 - - - - - - - - - - June 11, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonard B. Harmon, Texas prisoner # 661460, has filed a
motion to vacate the January 30, 1998, letter of the clerk of
this court advising him that he is required to comply with 28
U.S.C. § 1915 by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal in the district court. Harmon argues
that the clerk abused his authority in issuing the above letter
and in not allowing him to proceed IFP on appeal without further
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 97-41512 -2-
authorization pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Harmon did not file an IFP motion in the
district court. The clerk’s January 30, 1998, letter correctly
advised Harmon that in order to proceed IFP on appeal he must
file an IFP motion in the district court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Morgan v. Haro, 112 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997).
Harmon’s motion to vacate the clerk’s January 30, 1998, letter is
DENIED.
Because Harmon failed to file an IFP motion in the district
court as directed by the clerk of this court and because he has
filed a frivolous motion to vacate the clerk’s January 30, 1998,
letter in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of § 1915(b),
Harmon’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2;
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The
dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Additionally, Harmon is cautioned
that any future frivolous appeals or pleadings filed by him or on
his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Harmon is
cautioned further to review any pending appeals and pleadings to
ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
MOTION TO VACATE DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harmon v. TDCJ - Inst Div, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-tdcj-inst-div-ca5-1998.