Filed: Feb. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-60321 Summary Calendar JOHN DAVID MILLSAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH SKIFFER, JOHN BOOTH, WILLIE CATCHING, VERON JORDAN, MISHEILA JOHNSON, JOHN DOE, Mail Deliverer, JOHN DOE, Mail Inspector, JOHN DOE,Law Library Director, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No.3:96-CV-675-WS - - - - - - - - - - February 2, 2000 Before JONES,
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-60321 Summary Calendar JOHN DAVID MILLSAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH SKIFFER, JOHN BOOTH, WILLIE CATCHING, VERON JORDAN, MISHEILA JOHNSON, JOHN DOE, Mail Deliverer, JOHN DOE, Mail Inspector, JOHN DOE,Law Library Director, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No.3:96-CV-675-WS - - - - - - - - - - February 2, 2000 Before JONES, ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60321
Summary Calendar
JOHN DAVID MILLSAP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH SKIFFER, JOHN BOOTH, WILLIE CATCHING, VERON JORDAN,
MISHEILA JOHNSON, JOHN DOE, Mail Deliverer, JOHN DOE,
Mail Inspector, JOHN DOE,Law Library Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No.3:96-CV-675-WS
- - - - - - - - - -
February 2, 2000
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
John David Millsap, Mississippi prisoner #31267, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Millsap argues that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim that
he was unconstitutionally deprived of personal property found in
his cell during a prison “shakedown,” and of personal mail that he
alleges was confiscated from the mail room. Whether these alleged
property deprivations were negligent or intentional, they cannot
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
form the basis of a due process claim in a § 1983 action. See
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-35 (1986)(negligent); Hudson
v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517, 533-36 (1984)(intentional). The remainder
of Millsap’s arguments are unsubstantiated allegations for which he
was unable to establish a factual basis during two separate
hearings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Millsap’s complaint as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Millsap’s appeal is without arguable merit and is 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.
Millsap is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal. See
Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996)
(“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court of
appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of [§ 1915(g)].”). We
caution Millsap that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not
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 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
