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)
01-20327•Cameron v. Johnson, et al
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20327
Conference Calendar
LEROY CHARLES CAMERON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION TEXAS BOARD OF
PARDONS & PAROLES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-3123
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leroy Charles Cameron, Texas prisoner # 190472, appeals the
district court's dismissal of his pro se complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the district court's denial of his post-
judgment motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in the
district court. He has also filed a motion to file a one-page
supplement to his brief; that motion is GRANTED.
Cameron's notice of appeal is untimely as to the district
court's dismissal of the complaint, and this court therefore does
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 01-20327
-2-
not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that order.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); United States v. Merrifield, 764
F.2d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1985). Cameron's brief does not argue
that the district court erred in denying his post-judgment motion
to proceed IFP in the district court, and he has therefore waived
the only issue arguably on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
This appeal is frivolous, and it is DISMISSED. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of
this appeal counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.
1996). Cameron is warned that if he accumulates three strikes he
will be barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal
brought in a United States court unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; § 1915(g) SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.