Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nathaniel Allen v. Michael Seiler, 13-10243 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 13-10243 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-10243 Document: 00512305697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2013 No. 13-10243 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk NATHANIEL L. ALLEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus HONORABLE MICHAEL T. SEILER, Official Capacity; GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas, Official Capacity; ALLISON TAYLOR, Executive Director, Office of Violent Sex Offender Management, Official Capacity; DIAN
More
Case: 13-10243 Document: 00512305697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2013 No. 13-10243 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk NATHANIEL L. ALLEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus HONORABLE MICHAEL T. SEILER, Official Capacity; GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas, Official Capacity; ALLISON TAYLOR, Executive Director, Office of Violent Sex Offender Management, Official Capacity; DIANA LEMON, Office of Violent Sex Offender Management, Case Manager, El Paso, Texas, Official Capacity; CLEMMY WASHINGTON, Office of Violent Sex Offender Management, Case Manager, Fort Worth, Texas, Official Capacity, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 4:12-CV-414 Case: 13-10243 Document: 00512305697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 No. 13-10243 Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nathaniel Allen, confined under an order of civil commitment as a violent sex offender, sued various state officials and employees for declaratory and injunctive relief. On January 30, 2013, the district court issued a thorough and persuasive seventeen-page opinion and order dismissing all claims. The district court carefully addressed all of Allen’s assertions and explained why they have no merit. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. Allen’s motion for appointment of coun- sel is DENIED. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer