Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIA1M:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael G. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cindy GROOMER; Caroline Wood-burn; Troy C. Bennett, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-10433
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2003.
    
      Michael G. Scott, pro se, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIA1M:

Michael G. Scott, Texas prisoner # 762996, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Scott alleged in his complaint that the defendants, who are state clerks of court, denied him access to the court by conspiring to withhold his state habeas corpus application. On appeal, Scott persists in this argument.

Scott has not addressed the district court’s conclusions that his claims against Groomer were in her supervisory capacity and failed to allege a causal connection between her actions and the denial of a constitutional right or that Scott failed to show how he was harmed by the alleged failure to process his pleading properly. Accordingly, Scott has abandoned those issues on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Moreover, a review of Scott’s complaint shows that his bald allegations of a conspiracy are insufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (5th Cir.1987); see also Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA) Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2003).

Scott has filed motions for the appointment of counsel, for production of documents, and for transfer of custody. Those motions are DENIED.

Scott’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of the appeal counts as a strike against Scott for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). Scott is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED. 
      
       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.