Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11267/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11267-0/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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11267

Conference Calendar

 

DAVID LERONE KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES R. ELLINGBURG, Major; ROMAN G. MCCOY, Grievance

Coordinator; TED L. MOORE, Lieutenant; LINDA D. HALES,

Correctional Officer; AMY J. REED, Correctional Officer; BERTA M.

TRUESDELL, Correctional Officer; SHEILA L. WHATLEY, Law 

Librarian; STUART D. WILLIAMS, Shoe Factory Manager; SHERLY F.

BEST, Unit Coordinator for Support Services Inmates; MONTY D.

MCKINNEY, Correctional Officer; SHAYE L. PINGEL, Counsel

Substitute I; THERESA L. HENDRICK, Captain; STEVEN N. RICH,

Assistant Warden; BRIAN W. RODEEN, Assistant Warden; JANE

COCKERHAM, Ombudsman Office; D.F. FONDREN, Region V Grievance

Supervisor; GREG GAUDIN, Grievance Supervisor; KEITH CLENDENNEN,

Offender Grievance; M. MUNSELLE, Assistant Regional Director I of

Region V; J. MANUEL PERALTA, Assistant Administrator of Offender

Grievance; UNKNOWN PERSONS, individually and in their official

capacity as employees of the TDCJ-ID,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:01-CV-104

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Case: 03-11267 Document: 0051146724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-11267

-2-

David Lerone King, Texas prisoner # 592507, appeals the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his in forma

pauperis (IFP) civil rights suit as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim. King argues that he has alleged the existence of

a specific constitutional right, i.e., his right to file a

grievance, and that the defendants retaliated against him for

exercising that right by conducting unauthorized searches,

confiscating his property, changing his job, and finding him

guilty of disciplinary violations. Because King has not briefed

the other issues he raised in his compliant, those issues are

waived. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.

1994). 

King’s allegations make clear that the alleged retaliatory

actions stemmed not from filing his own grievances but from his

activity assisting over 100 other prisoners to file grievances on

a particular issue. Such secondary litigation activity does not

“comprise the basis of a retaliation claim.” See Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997). 

King’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the

district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th

 Case: 03-11267 Document: 0051146724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-11267

-3-

Cir. 1996). King is WARNED that if he accumulates three

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to

proceed IFP 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). 

 Case: 03-11267 Document: 0051146724 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2004