Lynn v. Allen

Fifth Circuit

Lynn v. Allen

89 F. App'x 469

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 2004

Docket03-41622

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 F. App'x 469 (Lynn v. Allen) 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

Lynn v. Allen, 89 F. App'x 469 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

James Gregory Lynn, Texas prisoner # 636695, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. He moves for this court to grant him a restraining order; this motion is DENIED. See Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir.1963).

Lynn asserts that he was denied due process when he was placed in administrative segregation prior to a hearing on a disciplinary charge for possession of a weapon and during the hearing itself. Because Lynn has no interest in his custodial classification, his prehearing detention does not violation due process. Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.1999); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir.1998).

Lynn also asserts that he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearing and that there was no evidence to support his disciplinary conviction. He is not entitled to relief on these grounds because he has not established that his disciplinary conviction has been overturned or vacated. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).

Lynn’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 Lynn’s appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim constitute two “strikes” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If Lynn obtains three “strikes,” 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 28 U.S.C. § 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. *

James Gregory Lynn, Texas prisoner # 636695, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. He moves for this court to grant him a restraining order; this motion is DENIED. See Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir.1963).

Lynn asserts that he was denied due process when he was placed in administrative segregation prior to a hearing on a disciplinary charge for possession of a weapon and during the hearing itself. Because Lynn has no interest in his custodial classification, his prehearing detention does not violation due process. Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.1999); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir.1998).

Lynn also asserts that he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearing and that there was no evidence to support his disciplinary conviction. He is not entitled to relief on these grounds because he has not established that his disciplinary conviction has been overturned or vacated. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997).

Lynn’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 Lynn’s appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim constitute two “strikes” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If Lynn obtains three “strikes,” 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 28 U.S.C. § 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)

89 F. App'x 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynn-v-allen-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack