Jones v. Ramos

Fifth Circuit

Jones v. Ramos

234 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2007

Docket06-10651

StatusUnpublished

This text of 234 F. App'x 224 (Jones v. Ramos) 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

Jones v. Ramos, 234 F. App'x 224 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Jones, Texas prisoner # 656546, appeals from the district court’s *225 dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of his complaint purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241. We review the district court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997).

Jones contends that numerous employees at the prison facility engaged in a conspiracy against him for filing inmate grievances. Jones sought relief under a criminal statute. See § 241; United States v. Bigham, 812 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir.1987). The decision whether or not to bring criminal charges rests solely with the prosecutor. See Bigham, 812 F.2d at 945; United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1462 (5th Cir.1992); see also Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir.1990). Accordingly, Jones has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims against the defendants as frivolous. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193.

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Jones’s complaint as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed 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. See § 1915(g).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.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

Christopher Jones, Texas prisoner # 656546, appeals from the district court’s *225 dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of his complaint purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241. We review the district court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997).

Jones contends that numerous employees at the prison facility engaged in a conspiracy against him for filing inmate grievances. Jones sought relief under a criminal statute. See § 241; United States v. Bigham, 812 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir.1987). The decision whether or not to bring criminal charges rests solely with the prosecutor. See Bigham, 812 F.2d at 945; United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1462 (5th Cir.1992); see also Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir.1990). Accordingly, Jones has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims against the defendants as frivolous. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193.

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Jones’s complaint as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed 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. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION 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)

234 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-ramos-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack