Court Opinion

ID: 28896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:31:25+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:52.059586
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                          No. 02-10682
                        Summary Calendar

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARPER OTTOWAY; RICHARD WILLIAMS, Officer; SALVADOR TERUEL;
BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON; JAMES HUMPHREY; JOE
SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED; LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER;
CAROLYN BOLDS; BRIAN MCKELLIPS; LISA JAMES; PAUL TAYLOR,

               Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SALVADOR TERUEL,

               Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON,

               Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
                           No. 02-10682
                                -2-

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES HUMPHREY, Officer,

               Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOE SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED,

               Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAUL TAYLOR, Sergeant; LISA JAMES, Lieutenant;
BRIAN MCKELLIPS, Sergeant; RICHARD WILLIAMS,

               Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

               Plaintiff-Appellant.

versus

LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER,

               Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
                             No. 02-10682
                                  -3-

OTIS RUDD,

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CAROLYN BOLDS,

               Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

OTIS RUDD,

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD WILLIAMS,

                 Defendant-Appellee.

                          --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Northern District of Texas
                        USDC Nos. 7:02-CV-53-R
                              7:01-CV-234-R
                              7:01-CV-208-R
                              7:01-CV-207-R
                              7:01-CV-185-R
                              7:01-CV-179-R
                              7:01-CV-160-R
                              7:01-CV-159-R
                              7:01-CV-126-R
                          --------------------
                             October 1, 2002

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Otis Rudd, Texas inmate # 505837, appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in

     *
        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.
                          No. 02-10682
                               -4-

which he sought transfer to another prison unit.    Rudd requests

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, asserting

that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.    Rudd

does not challenge the district court’s finding that he has three

strikes against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

     Rudd's allegations do not establish that he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.    See Baños v. O'Guin,

144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998).    Accordingly, Rudd’s motion

for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED.

     Rudd’s appeal is DISMISSED.   Should Rudd wish to reinstate

his appeal, he has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay

the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the

district court.

     MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.