Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21229/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21229

Summary Calendar

 

HARVEY WENDT

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JOHN D RAINEY, Judge, PATRICK E HIGGINBOTHAM, Judge, JERRY E

SMITH, Judge, GARY WAKEFIELD, Warden, EDITH B CLEMENT, Judge

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-2113 

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harvey Wendt, Texas prisoner # 537128, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as malicious

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that the

district court erred in raising res judicata sua sponte and that

the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Warden

Wakefield. A review of the allegations made by Wendt against

Wakefield in his previous lawsuit shows that they are

 Case: 03-21229 Document: 0051526495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2004
No. 03-21229

-2-

sufficiently similar to the allegations made against Wakefield in

this case. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing Wendt’s claims against Wakefield as

malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Pittman

v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993).

Wendt argues that Judge John D. Rainey, and Circuit Judges

Patrick E. Higginbotham, Jerry E. Smith, and Edith B. Clement

conspired to deprive him of his right to a full and fair hearing

of his claims against Wakefield in his previous appeal of the

dismissal of his first 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Although the

judges are not entitled to absolute immunity from suit for

injunctive relief or declaratory relief under § 1983, see Chrissy

F. by Medley v. Miss. Dep’t of Publ Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 849

(5th Cir. 1991), the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing this claim as it is without arguable merit and,

therefore, frivolous. See Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022,

1025 (5th Cir. 1998).

Wendt’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, it

is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Wendt received a strike

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in Wendt v. Wakefield, No. H:01-CV-1983

(S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2002), and in Wendt v. Wakefield, No. 02-20998

(5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2003). The district court’s dismissal of

Wendt’s complaint as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count

 Case: 03-21229 Document: 0051526495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2004
No. 03-21229

-3-

as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Wendt has now accumulated at

least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he may not

proceed in forma pauperis 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. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) BAR IMPOSED. 

 Case: 03-21229 Document: 0051526495 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2004