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)
02-30347•Armand v. Louisiana, State of
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30347
Conference Calendar
LINSTON ARMAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-445-N
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Linston Armand, Louisiana prisoner # 100902, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Armand contends that
the State of Louisiana violated his right to due process by
failing to inform him of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations for
filing a federal petition for habeas corpus.
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 02-30347
-2-
Neither the United States Constitution nor any federal
statute requires a state or any state official to notify a person
convicted in state court of the AEDPA’s one-year limitations
period for filing a federal habeas petition. The district court
correctly dismissed Armand’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191,
193 (5th Cir. 1997); Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th
Cir. 1999).
The dismissal of Armand’s complaint by the district court
counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Armand is cautioned
that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or
appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility
unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.