Henderson v. Dretke

Fifth Circuit

Henderson v. Dretke

202 F. App'x 792

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

Docket06-40044

StatusUnpublished

This text of 202 F. App'x 792 (Henderson v. Dretke) 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

Henderson v. Dretke, 202 F. App'x 792 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas prisoner # 199786, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In that complaint, Henderson challenged the constitutionality of Texas’ parole procedures. Henderson’s brief, however, does not address the district court’s determinations that (1) Fifth Circuit precedent deemed his ex post facto *793 claim frivolous and (2) his due process challenge was not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. These issues are therefore waived. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Henderson’s appeal is frivolous and is therefore dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We remind Henderson that, after the docketing of the instant appeal, we imposed the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar in Henderson v. Enns, 179 Fed.Appx. 225 (5th Cir.2006) (unpublished). Consequently, Henderson is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas prisoner # 199786, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In that complaint, Henderson challenged the constitutionality of Texas’ parole procedures. Henderson’s brief, however, does not address the district court’s determinations that (1) Fifth Circuit precedent deemed his ex post facto *793 claim frivolous and (2) his due process challenge was not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. These issues are therefore waived. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Henderson’s appeal is frivolous and is therefore dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We remind Henderson that, after the docketing of the instant appeal, we imposed the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar in Henderson v. Enns, 179 Fed.Appx. 225 (5th Cir.2006) (unpublished). Consequently, Henderson is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-dretke-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack