Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50663/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50663 

Conference Calendar

 

ROBERT DAMIAN JOYCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRAVIS COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CV-262 

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Joyce, Texas prisoner # 1078414, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his civil

rights complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Joyce alleged that the Travis County jail failed

to provide notice of his rights under the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA) on bulletin boards, in the handbook, and

throughout the jail facility. Joyce argues that the district

court erred in construing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 Case: 03-50663 Document: 0051421458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-50663 

-2-

and in determining that he failed to state a claim for relief

under the ADA. 

A dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the de novo standard of

review. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.

1999). The district court did not err in treating his complaint

as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action because Joyce challenged the

conditions of his confinement. See Cook v. Texas Dep’t of

Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168

(5th Cir. 1994). Further, the district court did not err in

dismissing Joyce’s complaint because he failed to establish

the requirements for filing a cognizable claim under the ADA. 

See Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Texas, 118 F.3d 421, 428

(5th Cir. 1997).

Because Joyce’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. This dismissal of this appeal

as frivolous counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as

does the district court’s dismissal of Joyce’s complaint for

failure to state a claim. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

385-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Joyce is warned that if he accumulates

three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

 Case: 03-50663 Document: 0051421458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-50663 

-3-

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 

 Case: 03-50663 Document: 0051421458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2004