Herron vs. Cockrell, (5th Cir. 2003)
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-21328 Conference Calendar LARRY LEONARD HERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; IBEAM HARRY; COLLETTE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-3842 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Leonard Herron, Texas prisoner # 00715927, appeals the district court§ 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(1). HerronÂ’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Herron acknowledges that the Supreme Court has ruled that the retroactive application of “MeganÂ’s laws” requiring sexual offender registration and notification do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Smith v. Doe , 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1154 (2003); Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe , 123 S. Ct. 1160, 1164-65 (2003) (notification provisions of sex offender registration law do not violate procedural due process); see also Moore v. Avoyelles Correctional Center , 253 F.3d 870, 872 (5th Cir. 2001) (Louisiana sex offender notification law does not violate the ConstitutionÂ’s proscription of ex post facto laws.).
However, Herron contends that the law still violates the Due Process Clause because it discriminates against him. Herron states that he was convicted in cause no. 916850 on February 12, 2003, for failure to comply as a sex offender. He states that his failure to comply charge is now on appeal due to the fact that his plea was coerced and involuntary. He also attacks his guilty plea to the original sexual offense.
Herron§ 1983 complaint as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower ,
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996) (§ 1915(g)].”).
We caution Herron 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 02-21328
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 1915 - Sec. 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Michael D. Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Avoyelles Correctional Center, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 253 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 2001)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Valentino B. Adepegba, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy G. Hammons, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Special Agent Assigned To F C I Oakdale; John L. Nixon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting Supervisory Special Agent At F C I Oakdale, Defendants-Appellees., 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
