Hubert Arvie v. Robert Tanner

Fifth Circuit

Hubert Arvie v. Robert Tanner

518 F. App'x 304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2013

Docket12-31000

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 518 F. App'x 304 (Hubert Arvie v. Robert Tanner) 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

Hubert Arvie v. Robert Tanner, 518 F. App'x 304 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Hubert Arvie, Louisiana prisoner # 122010, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial of his motion to proceed IFP in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the district court. The district court determined that Arvie was barred from proceeding IFP because he had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1 Arvie does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the § 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of this contention, he states that his requests to see a cardiac specialist and for “necessary life-sustaining treatment” for his hepatitis was denied and that if his *305 Hepatitis C is not properly treated, he will sustain irreversible liver damage. Additionally, he asserts that he is forced to eat foods that cause him to experience chest and kidney pains.

“[A] prisoner with three strikes is entitled to proceed with his action or appeal only if he is in imminent danger at the time that he seeks to file his suit in district court or seeks to proceed with his appeal or files a motion to proceed IFP.” Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998). Arvie’s contentions indicate that he suffers from a variety of chronic medical conditions for which he is receiving treatment. Although he apparently disagrees with the course of his treatment, there is nothing to suggest that Arvie’s medical conditions place him in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. See Arvie v. Lastrapes, No. 95-30967, 1997 WL 34211855 (5th Cir. June 15, 1997).

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

PER CURIAM: *

Hubert Arvie, Louisiana prisoner # 122010, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial of his motion to proceed IFP in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the district court. The district court determined that Arvie was barred from proceeding IFP because he had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1 Arvie does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the § 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of this contention, he states that his requests to see a cardiac specialist and for “necessary life-sustaining treatment” for his hepatitis was denied and that if his *305 Hepatitis C is not properly treated, he will sustain irreversible liver damage. Additionally, he asserts that he is forced to eat foods that cause him to experience chest and kidney pains.

“[A] prisoner with three strikes is entitled to proceed with his action or appeal only if he is in imminent danger at the time that he seeks to file his suit in district court or seeks to proceed with his appeal or files a motion to proceed IFP.” Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998). Arvie’s contentions indicate that he suffers from a variety of chronic medical conditions for which he is receiving treatment. Although he apparently disagrees with the course of his treatment, there is nothing to suggest that Arvie’s medical conditions place him in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is 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.

1

. See Arvie v. Lastrapes, No. 95-30967, 1997 WL 34211855 (5th Cir. June 15, 1997).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 F. App'x 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-arvie-v-robert-tanner-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack