Hopkins v. Eason

Fifth Circuit

Hopkins v. Eason

104 F. App'x 448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2004

Docket04-10369

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 F. App'x 448 (Hopkins v. Eason) 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

Hopkins v. Eason, 104 F. App'x 448 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

James Earl Hopkins, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1031879, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of jurisdiction. The district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen Hopkins’s previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which was dismissed by another district court. See Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 78 (5th Cir.1970).

Hopkins’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Hopkins is warned that the dismissal of his appeal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that once he accumulates three “strikes” he will be 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.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

James Earl Hopkins, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1031879, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of jurisdiction. The district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen Hopkins’s previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which was dismissed by another district court. See Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 78 (5th Cir.1970).

Hopkins’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Hopkins is warned that the dismissal of his appeal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that once he accumulates three “strikes” he will be 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

104 F. App'x 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-eason-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack