Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40231 Conference Calendar _ KOYTON GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT C. CHESHIRE, District Judge, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-V-95-84 - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Koyton Gant, # 666003, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40231 Conference Calendar _ KOYTON GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT C. CHESHIRE, District Judge, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-V-95-84 - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Koyton Gant, # 666003, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-40231
Conference Calendar
__________________
KOYTON GANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT C. CHESHIRE, District Judge,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-V-95-84
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Koyton Gant, # 666003, appeals the judgment of the district
court dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
ยง 1915(d). He argues inter alia that Judge Cheshire is not
entitled to absolute immunity in his function as the presiding
judge in his state habeas corpus application. We have reviewed
the record and Gant's brief and conclude that the district court
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-40231
-2-
did not abuse its discretion. Gant v. Cheshire, No. CA-V-95-84
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 1996).
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Gant that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Gant is further cautioned to
review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise
arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously
decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.