The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-11405•Holiday v. Tom Green County
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11405
Conference Calendar
HENRY WARREN HOLIDAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOM GREEN COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-47-C
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Warren Holiday, Texas prisoner # 567442, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Holiday’s complaint
asserted that his civil rights were violated because jail
officials confiscated his law books for a time and placed a
county property stamp on them. He also conclusionally asserts
for the first time on appeal that he was denied access to courts
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 01-11405
-2-
and that the jail law library was inadequate, but this court will
not consider claims that are raised for the first time on appeal.
See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount
Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not err in dismissing Holiday’s
deprivation-of-property claim as frivolous. See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Texas has an adequate
postdeprivation remedy for confiscation of prisoner property.
Cathey v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995).
Holiday’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996). Holiday therefore has two “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). We caution Holiday that once he accumulates three
strikes, he may not 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.