Woodall v. State of Texas

Fifth Circuit

Woodall v. State of Texas

78 F. App'x 953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 2003

Docket03-20563

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 F. App'x 953 (Woodall v. State of Texas) 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

Woodall v. State of Texas, 78 F. App'x 953 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Ernest Troy Woodall (‘Woodall”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for failure to state a claim. Woodall argues that the defendants entered a divorce decree while he was incarcerated which resulted in the loss of his business and his real estate.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim will be “upheld only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Judges enjoy absolute ju *954 dicial immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings. Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir.1996). Official court reporters are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they acted pursuant to their lawful authority and following in good faith the instructions or rules of the Court. See Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir.1980). Because Woodall did not allege that the defendants acted outside of the scope of their official duties, the district court did not err in determining that they were entitled to immunity. Furthermore, Woodall has not shown that the State of Texas is not entitled to immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).

Woodall was previously warned that if he continued to file frivolous appeals, this court would issue sanctions. See Woodall v. State of Texas, No. 03-41134 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2003). Because this court has previously warned of sanctions and Woodall’s appeal is frivolous, we determine that sanctions are warranted. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.1988) (courts of appeals have the ability to impose sanctions sua sponte).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. Woodall is hereby ORDERED to pay $250.00 to the clerk of this court. Until the sanction is paid, Woodall is barred from filing any pro se civil appeal in this court, or any initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction. The clerk of this court or any district court in this circuit is directed to return any attempted submissions which do not comply with the court’s order, unfiled, to Woodall.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

*

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. *

Ernest Troy Woodall (‘Woodall”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for failure to state a claim. Woodall argues that the defendants entered a divorce decree while he was incarcerated which resulted in the loss of his business and his real estate.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim will be “upheld only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Judges enjoy absolute ju *954 dicial immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings. Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir.1996). Official court reporters are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they acted pursuant to their lawful authority and following in good faith the instructions or rules of the Court. See Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir.1980). Because Woodall did not allege that the defendants acted outside of the scope of their official duties, the district court did not err in determining that they were entitled to immunity. Furthermore, Woodall has not shown that the State of Texas is not entitled to immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).

Woodall was previously warned that if he continued to file frivolous appeals, this court would issue sanctions. See Woodall v. State of Texas, No. 03-41134 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2003). Because this court has previously warned of sanctions and Woodall’s appeal is frivolous, we determine that sanctions are warranted. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.1988) (courts of appeals have the ability to impose sanctions sua sponte).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. Woodall is hereby ORDERED to pay $250.00 to the clerk of this court. Until the sanction is paid, Woodall is barred from filing any pro se civil appeal in this court, or any initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction. The clerk of this court or any district court in this circuit is directed to return any attempted submissions which do not comply with the court’s order, unfiled, to Woodall.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

*

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)

78 F. App'x 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodall-v-state-of-texas-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack