Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorenzo THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jackson COMSTOCK, Individually & in his official capacity as Lieutenant; Bobby Purvis, Individually & in his official capacity as Sergeant; Jerry Cowen, Individually & in his official capacity as Correctional Officer III; Sammy Brown, Individually & in his official capacity as Correctional Officer III; Terry Valentine, Individually & in his official capacity as Correctional Officer III; Gary Herring, Sergeant; Michael Roesler, Captain; Kathryn Bell, Captain; Denicia Jefferson, Administrative Technician III; Sylvia Piasta, Chief of Classification; Eugene Harbin, Major; Robert Treon, Warden; Cederic McKnight, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-41757.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
    Lorenzo Thomas, Navasota, TX, pro se.
    Deven Desai, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Thomas, Texas prisoner # 739840, appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.CivP. 60(b) motion as untimely. Thomas argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Fed.R.CivP. 60(b)(3) motion as untimely. He contends that he had no knowledge of the evidence alleged to be newly discovered until more than a year after the district court’s judgment was affirmed by this court. He argues that he should not be held to the one year time limit of Fed. R.CrvP. 60(b) because he did not become aware of the Internal Affairs Division investigative report until he received it in the initial disclosure in No. 9:99-CV-333.

This initial disclosure was made on June 12, 2000. Thus, Thomas became aware of the alleged newly discovered evidence within one year of final judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thomas’s motion as untimely. Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 871 (5th Cir.1989).

Thomas’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. Thomas’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

Thomas is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Thomas that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed informa 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).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       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.