Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20107/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20107-0/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. 15-20107

Summary Calendar

CARLOS LOVE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KELLY J. SIEGLER,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-3583

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Love, Texas prisoner # 582511, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

According to Love, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly J. Siegler 

violated a plea agreement with him by filing a false offense report with the 

Texas Department of Correctional Justice (TDCJ) and the Board of Pardons 

and Paroles. Love contends that Siegler acted beyond the scope of her duties 

 

* 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

December 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-20107

2

as a prosecutor when she falsely identified him as a sex offender in the offense 

report.

The offense report which Love submitted with his complaint allegedly

showing that Siegler acted beyond the scope of her authority and filed false 

charges against him supports neither assertion. The affidavit Love submits of 

the Director of Classification and Records for the Correctional Institutions 

Division of the TDCJ similarly fails to support his claims against Siegler. 

Rather, the affidavit indicates only that prison authorities have reviewed and 

will correct Love’s records to eliminate erroneous references to a sexual assault 

of the victim by Love. Even under de novo review, therefore, Love fails to show 

error in the district court’s conclusion that his complaint contained insufficient 

factual matter to state a claim for relief against Siegler that was plausible on 

its face. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013); Johnson v. 

Kearns, 870 F.2d 992, 997-98 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s dismissal of Love’s § 1983 complaint for failure to 

state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. 

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Love has filed previously two 

§ 1983 complaints that the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim 

and for lack of jurisdiction to award monetary damages against the defendants 

in their official capacities. See Love v. Owens, No. 1:13-CV-574, slip op. at 1-2

(W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015); Love v. Jenkins, No. 1:13-CV-568, slip op at 1-2

(W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015); see also Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center,

136 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, Love has accumulated three 

strikes for purposes of § 1915(g), and the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar is IMPOSED. 

As a result, Love is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil 

 Case: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-20107

3

action or appeal that is filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2015