Raymond Carr v. Ed Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 7, 2020
• Docket: 19-20420
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-20420 Document: 00515664302 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2020

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED December 7, 2020 No. 19-20420 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Raymond E. Carr,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, Chief, Harris County Sheriff’s Department, in his individual and official capacity; Probable Cause Judge, in his individual and official capacity; UTMB Medical Department, in its individual and official capacity; ISS Facility/International Airline Security, in its individual and official capacity; New Hope Housing, in its individual and official capacity; Art Acevedo, Chief, Houston Police Department, in his individual and official capacity; Wells Fargo Bank, in its individual and official capacity; Krash Cabin Management, in its individual and official capacity; Imperio Used Car Dealership; Texas Post Master General, in his individual and official capacity; Houston Police Department; United States Postal Service,

Defendants—Appellees,

consolidated with _____________

No. 19-20621 _____________ Case: 19-20420 Document: 00515664302 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2020

No. 19-20420 c/w No. 19-20621 Lord of the Streets Raymond E. Carr,

Civil Rights Project; Lone Star Legal Aid; Beacon Law Center; 7031 Koll Center; Metropolitan Transit Authority; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Harris County Hospital District; Biomat Plasma Center; Coordinated Access Housing; Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Houston Community College; Assurance Wireless; FBI Agency,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-1754 USDC No. 4:18-CV-3551

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Raymond E. Carr appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Carr v. Gonzalez, No. 4:19-CV-1754, as barred by the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar. See § 1915(g). He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen or amend the dismissal with prejudice of Carr v. Civil Rights Project, No. 4:18-CV-3551, for want of prosecution. However, he has abandoned, by failing to brief, the only cognizable issues on appeal. See Yohey

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

2 Case: 19-20420 Document: 00515664302 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/07/2020

No. 19-20420 c/w No. 19-20621 v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgments of the district court are therefore AFFIRMED. Carr’s motions to supplement the record reference events that post- date the filing of these appeals. As those facts cannot be considered for the first time on appeal, those motions are DENIED. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Carr has not shown that he is entitled to injunctive relief from this court in the first instance, his motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions are also DENIED. See Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987); Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963). Carr is REMINDED that, because he has accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding 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. He is also WARNED that, regardless of the § 1915(g) bar, any frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings that he files will invite the imposition of additional sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; REMINDED OF THREE STRIKES BAR; ADDITIONAL SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.