Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40942 Conference Calendar _ CLEMMIE R. WICKWARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL., Defendants, WILLIAM WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-92-CV-129 - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On February 29, 1996, this court barred filings by Clemmie Wick
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40942 Conference Calendar _ CLEMMIE R. WICKWARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL., Defendants, WILLIAM WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-92-CV-129 - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On February 29, 1996, this court barred filings by Clemmie Wickw..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40942
Conference Calendar
__________________
CLEMMIE R. WICKWARE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL.,
Defendants,
WILLIAM WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-92-CV-129
- - - - - - - - - -
April 18, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On February 29, 1996, this court barred filings by Clemmie
Wickware except with judicial permission. Wickware v. Collins,
No. 95-40641, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 1996)
(unpublished). One day earlier, Wickware filed the instant
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for the
production of a transcript at government expense in an unrelated
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 95-40942
-2-
appeal. We consider these motions because they were filed before
the bar was imposed.
Our review of the motions and the record reveals that
Wickware has failed to meet the requirements for IFP and for a
transcript. See Carson v. Polley,
689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.
1982); Harvey v. Andrist,
754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied,
471 U.S. 1126 (1985). The appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. Wickware is reminded that this court’s previously
announced bar remains in effect and that he must seek permission
from a judge to make any filings in any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction.
MOTIONS FOR IFP AND A TRANSCRIPT DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.