Young v. Lamar County Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 2002
Docket01-40981
StatusUnpublished

This text of Young v. Lamar County Texas (Young v. Lamar County 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
Young v. Lamar County Texas, (5th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40981 Conference Calendar

LARRY DEWAYNE YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS; MARVIN ANN PATTERSON, District Clerk of Lamar County,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CV-33 -------------------- April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Dewayne Young, Texas prisoner # 579131, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as

frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He renews his argument that his

constitutional rights were violated when he was denied free

copies of his state-court records.

As the district court determined, Young’s claim is

frivolous. See Smith v. Beto, 472 F.2d 164, 165 (5th Cir. 1973);

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-40981 -2-

see also United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 319 (1976).

Young’s appeal is wholly without arguable merit, is frivolous,

and is therefore DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. 42.2; Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Young’s motion “for

consideration of his mental health disorder” is DENIED.

Both this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal and the

district court’s dismissal of Young’s complaint count as

“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Young is

CAUTIONED that if he accumulates a third strike, he will not be

able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal

while he is incarcerated in any facility unless he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING

ISSUED.

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

Related

United States v. MacCollom
426 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Howard v. King
707 F.2d 215 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Adepegba v. Hammons
103 F.3d 383 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Young v. Lamar County Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-lamar-county-texas-ca5-2002.