Runels vs. Keesee, (5th Cir. 1998)
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-11258 Conference Calendar L. T.
RUNELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus D.L. KEESEE, Sheriff of Lubbock County Texas, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:97-CV-262-C August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * L.T. Runels, Texas prisoner # 707445, appeals the district court§ 1983 action as malicious and repetitive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Runels argues on appeal that, being a layman in the law, his first filing of this § 1983 action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not know what to file or how to file. He alleges that he was assisted by a writ writer in filing this second suit to correct the errors of the first suit. He states that in this second filing, he has clearly shown a constitutional violation.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Runels v. Keesee , No. 5:97-CV-262- C (N.D. Tex.
Oct. 15, 1997). Contrary to appellant§ 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1997).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 97-11258
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 - 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
