Filed: Oct. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-10682 Summary Calendar OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HARPER OTTOWAY; RICHARD WILLIAMS, Officer; SALVADOR TERUEL; BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON; JAMES HUMPHREY; JOE SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED; LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER; CAROLYN BOLDS; BRIAN MCKELLIPS; LISA JAMES; PAUL TAYLOR, Defendants-Appellees. _ OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SALVADOR TERUEL, Defendant-Appellee. _ OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, ve
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-10682 Summary Calendar OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HARPER OTTOWAY; RICHARD WILLIAMS, Officer; SALVADOR TERUEL; BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON; JAMES HUMPHREY; JOE SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED; LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER; CAROLYN BOLDS; BRIAN MCKELLIPS; LISA JAMES; PAUL TAYLOR, Defendants-Appellees. _ OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SALVADOR TERUEL, Defendant-Appellee. _ OTIS RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, ver..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10682
Summary Calendar
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARPER OTTOWAY; RICHARD WILLIAMS, Officer; SALVADOR TERUEL;
BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON; JAMES HUMPHREY; JOE
SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED; LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER;
CAROLYN BOLDS; BRIAN MCKELLIPS; LISA JAMES; PAUL TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SALVADOR TERUEL,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE ZOTZ; ERIC MORGAN; BILLY HAMPTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
No. 02-10682
-2-
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES HUMPHREY, Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOE SNEED; SHANE SIMPKINS; TOM REED,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAUL TAYLOR, Sergeant; LISA JAMES, Lieutenant;
BRIAN MCKELLIPS, Sergeant; RICHARD WILLIAMS,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant.
versus
LEELAND PACE; JOE BITER,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
No. 02-10682
-3-
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAROLYN BOLDS,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
OTIS RUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 7:02-CV-53-R
7:01-CV-234-R
7:01-CV-208-R
7:01-CV-207-R
7:01-CV-185-R
7:01-CV-179-R
7:01-CV-160-R
7:01-CV-159-R
7:01-CV-126-R
--------------------
October 1, 2002
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Otis Rudd, Texas inmate # 505837, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in
*
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. 02-10682
-4-
which he sought transfer to another prison unit. Rudd requests
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, asserting
that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Rudd
does not challenge the district court’s finding that he has three
strikes against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Rudd's allegations do not establish that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Baños v. O'Guin,
144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Rudd’s motion
for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Rudd’s appeal is DISMISSED. Should Rudd wish to reinstate
his appeal, he has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay
the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the
district court.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.