Filed: Apr. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20016 Conference Calendar ULYSSES JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JINKS LEE, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3747 - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ulysses Johnson, Texas prisoner 794106, appeals the
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20016 Conference Calendar ULYSSES JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JINKS LEE, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3747 - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ulysses Johnson, Texas prisoner 794106, appeals the ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20016
Conference Calendar
ULYSSES JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JINKS LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-3747
--------------------
April 10, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ulysses Johnson, Texas prisoner 794106, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim for which relief
could be granted. He contends that the district court erred by
dismissing his claim without giving him notice of the impending
dismissal and allowing him to amend his complaint. After de novo
review and considering that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A contains no
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20016
-2-
requirement that a plaintiff be given notice of an impending
dismissal, we hold that the district court properly dismissed
Johnson’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Because Johnson has failed to raise an issue of arguable
merit, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v.
King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Our dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal
for failure to state a claim count as two “strikes” against
Johnson for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Johnson
that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in
forma pauperis 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; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.