Moorer v. United States Penitentiary Pollock

Fifth Circuit

Moorer v. United States Penitentiary Pollock

342 F. App'x 51

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2009

Docket08-30736

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 F. App'x 51 (Moorer v. United States Penitentiary Pollock) 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

Moorer v. United States Penitentiary Pollock, 342 F. App'x 51 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Stephan Moorer, federal prisoner # 03502-007, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his original Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), complaint as frivolous and his amended complaint for lack of proper venue. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Moorer is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). Moorer fails to address the district court’s finding that his original complaint was precluded by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and that his amended complaint was filed in the wrong venue. Moorer has thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy *52 Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Moorer has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, Moorer’s motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20, the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Moorer’s original complaint as frivolous and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Moorer is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not 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).

MOTION DENIED; 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: *

Stephan Moorer, federal prisoner # 03502-007, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his original Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), complaint as frivolous and his amended complaint for lack of proper venue. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Moorer is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). Moorer fails to address the district court’s finding that his original complaint was precluded by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), and that his amended complaint was filed in the wrong venue. Moorer has thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy *52 Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Moorer has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, Moorer’s motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20, the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Moorer’s original complaint as frivolous and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Moorer is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not 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).

MOTION DENIED; 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)

342 F. App'x 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorer-v-united-states-penitentiary-pollock-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack