Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41400 Conference Calendar HERMAN PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION COMPANY DEPARTMENTS, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:00-CV-244 - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Herman Palmer, Texas prisoner number 537392, appeals the district court’s d
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41400 Conference Calendar HERMAN PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION COMPANY DEPARTMENTS, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:00-CV-244 - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Herman Palmer, Texas prisoner number 537392, appeals the district court’s di..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41400
Conference Calendar
HERMAN PALMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
COMPANY DEPARTMENTS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:00-CV-244
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Herman Palmer, Texas prisoner number 537392, appeals the
district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint for lack of exhaustion. Despite ample
opportunity to do so, Palmer has not shown that the district
court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Powe v. Ennis,
177
F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999); Wendell v. Asher,
162 F.3d 887,
890-91 (5th Cir. 1998); Cooper v. Brookshire,
70 F.3d 377, 380
(5th Cir. 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41400
-2-
Palmer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because this appeal lacks merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
This dismissal of Palmer’s appeal as frivolous counts as a
“strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We note that
Palmer has at least one other “strike” against him. See Palmer
v. Jones, No. 00-40371 (5th Cir., Dec. 14, 2000). Palmer is
warned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not be able to 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 § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.