Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20527/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20527-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guy L. Allen
Appellant
Board of Directors, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
Appellee
Kyle Rackley
Appellee
Wayne Scott
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20527

Conference Calendar

 

GUY L. ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director; KYLE RACKLEY; BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-1262

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guy L. Allen, Texas prisoner #642038, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil-rights

lawsuit, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as malicious pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The claims in Allen’s instant lawsuit

are duplicative of his claims in an earlier lawsuit that was

dismissed in district court as frivolous. As his instant claims

were duplicative, the district court properly dismissed them as

malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Pittman v.

 Case: 03-20527 Document: 0051571341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-20527

-2-

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

846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).

As Allen’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED

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

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Allen’s motion for appointment of

counsel on appeal is DENIED. 

The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous and the

district court’s dismissal of Allen’s instant lawsuit both count

as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Allen

previously received two strikes when his civil-rights lawsuits

were dismissed as frivolous in Allen v. Bluebird Bus Co., No.

4:98-CV-3414 (S.D. Tex. July 29, 1999), and in Allen v. Weems,

No. 6:02-CV-56 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2002). Because Allen has

accumulated at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he

is BARRED from proceeding 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). As Allen is not proceeding in

forma pauperis in the instant appeal, Allen is also WARNED that

sanctions may be imposed in response to future frivolous filings.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED; SANCTIONS

WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 03-20527 Document: 0051571341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004