Jones v. State of Texas

Fifth Circuit

Jones v. State of Texas

267 F. App'x 392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

Docket07-50978

StatusUnpublished

This text of 267 F. App'x 392 (Jones v. State of Texas) 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. State of Texas, 267 F. App'x 392 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Clement Davis Jones, Texas prisoner # 29054, seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint based on his failure to state a claim and on the defendants’ immunity. In filing the IFP motion, Jones is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his *393 appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

There is no merit to Jones’s argument that District Attorney Susan Reed and Assistant District Attorney Samantha Dimaio forfeited their immunity because they acted maliciously, intentionally, and in retaliation for his sex-offender status. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Because Jones does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims against Sheriff Ralph Lopez, Michael Valicek, and Sergeant G.D. Kuschel, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of those defendants. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Jones’s appeal has no arguable merit, is frivolous, and is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The dismissal by the district court of Jones’s complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be allowed to proceed IFP 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).

Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Clement Davis Jones, Texas prisoner # 29054, seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint based on his failure to state a claim and on the defendants’ immunity. In filing the IFP motion, Jones is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his *393 appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

There is no merit to Jones’s argument that District Attorney Susan Reed and Assistant District Attorney Samantha Dimaio forfeited their immunity because they acted maliciously, intentionally, and in retaliation for his sex-offender status. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Because Jones does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims against Sheriff Ralph Lopez, Michael Valicek, and Sergeant G.D. Kuschel, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of those defendants. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Jones’s appeal has no arguable merit, is frivolous, and is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The dismissal by the district court of Jones’s complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be allowed to proceed IFP 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).

Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 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)

267 F. App'x 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-of-texas-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack