Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20898/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20898-0/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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

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. 03-20898

Conference Calendar

 

KENNETH WAYNE GLOVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-384

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Glover, TDCJ-ID # 1198161, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. 

He challenges the district court’s certification that in forma

pauperis (IFP) status should not be granted on appeal because the

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

 Case: 03-20898 Document: 0051627639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-20898

-2-

Glover’s claims involve various policies and procedures of

the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles that have resulted in his

repeated reincarcerations. A favorable ruling on Glover’s claims

would call into question the validity of his parole revocations. 

The district court’s determination that Glover may not obtain

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 until his parole revocation is

reversed or otherwise called into question was not erroneous. 

See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Littles v.

Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir.

1995); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Glover has not shown that the district court erred in

certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. 

Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. We also DENY

Glover’s motions for en banc hearing and for an evidentiary

hearing. Glover’s appeal is without arguable merit and is

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

1983). Therefore, his appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d

at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s

dismissal of Glover’s complaint as frivolous each count as a

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

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Glover’s prior

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint also was dismissed as frivolous by the

district court, that dismissal also counts as a strike. See id.;

 Case: 03-20898 Document: 0051627639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-20898

-3-

Glover v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, No. H-01-51

(S.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2001). Because he has accumulated three

strikes, Glover may no longer 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). 

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

SANCTIONS IMPOSED. 

 Case: 03-20898 Document: 0051627639 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2004