Reed v. Swilley

266 F. App'x 336
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 2008
Docket07-60158
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 F. App'x 336 (Reed v. Swilley) 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
Reed v. Swilley, 266 F. App'x 336 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

James T. Reed, Mississippi prisoner # 08798, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In his complaint, Reed sought the production of documents related to the grand jury proceedings which led to his indictment, conviction, and subsequent life sentence for armed robbery.

Because Reed essentially sought federal district court review of the Mississippi state court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman 1 doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of the instant appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Reed is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Banks v. Slay
9 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (E.D. Missouri, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 F. App'x 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-swilley-ca5-2008.