Willie Smith v. R.D. McCleod Steve Gillian, K. Bright, D. Bostic, W. Mixon, W. Cogdell, S. Ethridge and R. Jamison

Fifth Circuit

Willie Smith v. R.D. McCleod Steve Gillian, K. Bright, D. Bostic, W. Mixon, W. Cogdell, S. Ethridge and R. Jamison

946 F.2d 417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1991

Docket91-2217

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 946 F.2d 417 (Willie Smith v. R.D. McCleod Steve Gillian, K. Bright, D. Bostic, W. Mixon, W. Cogdell, S. Ethridge and R. Jamison) 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

Willie Smith v. R.D. McCleod Steve Gillian, K. Bright, D. Bostic, W. Mixon, W. Cogdell, S. Ethridge and R. Jamison, 946 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Before us on a fifth appeal is Willie Smith, an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, whose § 1983 lawsuit against numerous prison officials was dismissed as frivolous by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In this complaint, Smith alleged that such actions by the prison officials as the occasional denial of showers, a seven-day detention in a “strip cell” because of an altercation with another prisoner, and discipline imposed for making suggestive remarks to a female nurse were unconstitutional. Smith also complains that the district court should not have sanctioned him $25.00 for filing this frivolous suit. Given Smith’s litigious history, we wonder only that the district court’s sanction was so small.

Time and again, we have warned prisoners that they may not abuse the court system by the filing of repetitive groundless lawsuits. We do so again. In another of Smith’s appeals, decided six months ago, he was warned that “the filing of any further frivolous appeals would bring into play the entire panoply of sanctions available to the court, including the imposition of financial penalties and the limiting of his access to the judicial system.” In that case, Smith had complained, inter alia, of experiencing a leaky cell one night because of a heavy rain. Smith v. Allison, 931 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.1991) (unpublished).

Because of Smith’s unwillingness to confine his litigiousness to cases of merit, we hereby impose a $100.00 sanction, payable to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, which filed a brief in this case. F.R.A.P. 38. We also order that Smith be barred from filing any further appeals in this court until (1) the sanctions awarded by this court and the district court are fully paid; and (2) a district court certifies his appeal as having some arguable merit. See Vinson v. Texas Board of Corrections, 901 F.2d 474, 475 (5th Cir.1990).

Appeal DISMISSED as frivolous; sanctions imposed.

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

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Before us on a fifth appeal is Willie Smith, an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, whose § 1983 lawsuit against numerous prison officials was dismissed as frivolous by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In this complaint, Smith alleged that such actions by the prison officials as the occasional denial of showers, a seven-day detention in a “strip cell” because of an altercation with another prisoner, and discipline imposed for making suggestive remarks to a female nurse were unconstitutional. Smith also complains that the district court should not have sanctioned him $25.00 for filing this frivolous suit. Given Smith’s litigious history, we wonder only that the district court’s sanction was so small.

Time and again, we have warned prisoners that they may not abuse the court system by the filing of repetitive groundless lawsuits. We do so again. In another of Smith’s appeals, decided six months ago, he was warned that “the filing of any further frivolous appeals would bring into play the entire panoply of sanctions available to the court, including the imposition of financial penalties and the limiting of his access to the judicial system.” In that case, Smith had complained, inter alia, of experiencing a leaky cell one night because of a heavy rain. Smith v. Allison, 931 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.1991) (unpublished).

Because of Smith’s unwillingness to confine his litigiousness to cases of merit, we hereby impose a $100.00 sanction, payable to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, which filed a brief in this case. F.R.A.P. 38. We also order that Smith be barred from filing any further appeals in this court until (1) the sanctions awarded by this court and the district court are fully paid; and (2) a district court certifies his appeal as having some arguable merit. See Vinson v. Texas Board of Corrections, 901 F.2d 474, 475 (5th Cir.1990).

Appeal DISMISSED as frivolous; sanctions imposed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 F.2d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-smith-v-rd-mccleod-steve-gillian-k-bright-d-bostic-w-mixon-ca5-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack