Anderson vs. Booker, (5th Cir. 2000)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60669 Summary Calendar WILLIAM E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WALTER BOOKER, Superintendent at Parchman; ANN LEE, Director - Offender Services - Mississippi Department of Corrections; JIMMY PARKER, Supervisor-Case Manager-Unit 32; EARL JACKSON, Supervisor-Case Manager-Unit 29; ANDREW HAWKINS, Director-Alcohol and Drugs - Unit 26; JOAN ROSS, Director-DisciplinaryMississippi Department of Corrections; EUGENE BOOKER, Lieutenant-Disciplinary CommitteeUnit 29, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:99-CV-57-B-B May 30, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William E. Anderson, Mississippi Prisoner no. 13682, appeals the district court§ 1983 prisoner civil rights claim. AndersonÂ’s motion to supplement his appellate brief is granted to the extent that he submits supplemental arguments and legal authority and denied to the extent that he submits additional evidence.
AndersonÂ’s first attempted notice of appeal is ineffective. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Page v. DeLaune , 837 F.2d 233, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1988).
AndersonÂ’s second notice of appeal is timely only as to the denial of his second post-judgment motion; review is for abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. , 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). We find none.
To the extent that Anderson asserted a claim based upon involuntary servitude, the district court correctly determined that the imposition of forced labor upon Anderson does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Watson v. Graves , 909 F.2d 1549, 1552 (5th Cir. 1990). To the extent that Anderson asserts due process claims for loss of good time credits and/or loss of privileges or imposition of punishment other than the loss of good-time credits, his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Because AndersonÂ’s claims lacked merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant his second Rule 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
No. 99-60669
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Marion Ray Mosley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer M.D. Cozby, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 813 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1987)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Linda Page, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Kathryn A. Delaune, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants., 837 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1988)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Kevin Watson and Raymond Wayne Thrash, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Odom Graves, Darryl Jarreau, Marilyn Jarreau, and Abe Ross, Defendants-Appellees., 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir. 1990)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
