Case Name: George A. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON; XYZ Insurance Company; Capitol Area Legal Services Corporation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 101 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 04-30102
Parties: George A. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LLOYD’S OF LONDON; XYZ Insurance Company; Capitol Area Legal Services Corporation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
George A. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LLOYD’S OF LONDON; XYZ Insurance Company; Capitol Area Legal Services Corporation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-30102.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
DECIDED: June 22, 2004.
George A. Jarrett, Jr., pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George A. Jarrett, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 339218, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after the district court certified that he could offer no non-frivolous issue for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).
The district court properly concluded that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine it had no jurisdiction to consider Jarrett's challenge to a state-court summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice claim. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir.1994) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1928)). Accordingly, Jarrett identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We uphold the district court's certification that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Jarrett's motion for IFP status is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Any other outstanding motions are DENIED.
The dismissal of Jarrett's complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Jarrett that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED; ALL OTHER MOTIONS DENIED.
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.