Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0063-01.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

Elzia Allen RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONE BLACK FEMALE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Mike Lightsey, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-20042
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2003.
    Elzia Allen Richardson, pro se, Huntsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    William Lance Cawthon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Elzia Allen Richardson, Texas prisoner # 525518, appeals from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Richardson contends that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) & (6), because Lieutenant Mike Lightsey allegedly gave perjured summary judgment affidavit testimony.

Even if Richardson’s assertions of perjury were accepted as true, we would set aside the judgment only if we found that Lightsey’s actions precluded Richardson from “fully and fairly presenting] [his] case.” See Diaz v. Methodist Hospital, 46 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Richardson made the same allegations during the summary judgment proceedings, and, therefore, Richardson was not prevented from “fully and fairly present[ing][his] case.” See id. Moreover, the issue whether Lightsey perjured himself was immaterial to the resolution of his appeal from the district court’s denial of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relief. See Richardson v. One Black Female, 64 Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir.2003) (unpublished). Richardson has therefore not shown an abuse of discretion on the part of the district court. See Diaz, 46 F.3d at 496.

Richardson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Richardson is 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, 388 (5th Cir.1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.