Court Opinion

ID: 30383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:53:40+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:40.085532
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 02-40491

                         ISAAC FRANKLIN,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                v.

          VICTOR RODRIQUEZ, Chairman, Board of Pardons
           and Parole; GERALD GARRETT, Board Member;
            BRENDOLYN ROGERS GARDNER, Board Member;
               W.G. “BILLY” WALKER, Board Member,

                                              Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                            (6:99-CV-83)
_________________________________________________________________
                         February 10, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Isaac Franklin, Texas prisoner #557634, appeals, pro se, from

the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and subsequent 59(e) motions

seeking reimbursement of court costs and fees.     Given the benefit

of liberal construction, Franklin errorously maintains he was

entitled to such reimbursement because he voluntarily dismissed his

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.    See Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 654

(5th Cir. 2000); see also Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1128

(5th Cir. 1997).   Franklin has not shown the district court abused

its discretion.    See Eleby v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 795 F.2d

411, 413 (5th Cir. 1986).

     To the extent Franklin is attempting to challenge the district

court’s September 1999 and December 2000 orders, he may not do so

in this appeal.      Because these orders were not at issue in

Franklin’s Rule 60(b) motion, they are not at issue here.        See

Aucoin v. K-Mart Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991).

                                                         AFFIRMED

                                   2