Filed: Oct. 28, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-41175 Conference Calendar CURTIS R. FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-819 - - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Curtis R. Francis, Texas prisoner #564414, appeals the denial of his motion f
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-41175 Conference Calendar CURTIS R. FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-819 - - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Curtis R. Francis, Texas prisoner #564414, appeals the denial of his motion fo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-41175
Conference Calendar
CURTIS R. FRANCIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:96-CV-819
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis R. Francis, Texas prisoner #564414, appeals the
denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. His argument
is moot in light of the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his suit,
because a “[p]reliminary injunction cannot survive dismissal of a
complaint.” 11A Charles Alan Wright Et Al., Federal Practice &
Procedure § 2947 at 126 n.19 (2d ed. 1995)(citing Venezia v.
Robinson,
16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1994).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 96-41175
-2-
Francis’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Francis now “has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on
the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, Francis is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis
in a civil action unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See
id.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.