Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40890/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40890-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40890

MELVIN JOHNSON, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CRAIG ESTLINBAUM; SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge; LAWRENCE E. 

MEYERS; CHERYL JOHNSON, Judge; MIKE KEASLER, Judge,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-130

Before PRADO, OWEN, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Johnson, III, Texas prisoner # 1626767, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action against a Texas district court judge and the judges of the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals, alleging that he was denied a fair opportunity to present 

facts in support of his state habeas application. The district court dismissed 

the complaint without prejudice, and it denied Johnson’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The court certified that the appeal was not 

* 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

FILED

July 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
No. 15-40890

taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, Johnson is 

challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Johnson’s argument that his claims for prospective injunctive and 

declaratory relief are cognizable under § 1983 fails. Here, Johnson challenged 

alleged constitutional defects in the state habeas proceedings—claims which 

he concedes cannot form the basis for federal habeas relief. See Moore v. 

Dretke, 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, a review of his pleadings 

demonstrates that the only remedy he sought against the Texas judges was in 

the nature of mandamus relief. Federal courts, however, do not have the 

authority to direct a state court’s actions under the circumstances alleged by 

Johnson. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 

1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973).

Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny the IFP 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of the 

“three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 

F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is WARNED that if he accumulates 

at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any 

civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

2

 Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2016