Bickham v. Blair, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-30981
Summary Calendar
ELMO JAMES BICKHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DUANE BLAIR; FRED M. KIRBY;
MELVIN GARRETT; JAMES HARRY;
BUSTER ROBERTS; RICK CORKERN,
Defendants-Appellees.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-881-I
----------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Elmo James Bickham, Louisiana prisoner # 406960, appeals from the adverse judgment
rendered in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Bickham’s requests for the appointment of counsel and to
supplement the record are DENIED.
Bickham’s claims of excessive force, failure to protect, and inadequate medical care depend
upon a review of the trial transcript. The district court denied Bickham’s request for a trial transcript,
and Bickham has not renewed his motion in this court or appealed the district court’s denial of his
request. His failure to provide one prevents this court from reviewing these arguments. See
Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415-16 (5th Cir. 1990).

-- 1 of 2 --

Bickham’s claim that he was not informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 443-45 (1966), is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Bickham’s
assertions that the district court never questioned his witnesses and failed to review many of his
documents which would have established his claims and that the outcome would have been different
if he had been allowed attorney fees are frivolous.
Bickham’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal constitutes a “strike” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Bickham accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will not be able
to 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 § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --