Filed: Oct. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50380 Summary Calendar ROBERT ARNOLD MOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SUSAN JEAN VIGEON, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-02-CV-14 - October 9, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Arnold Moss, Texas prisoner #935058, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50380 Summary Calendar ROBERT ARNOLD MOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SUSAN JEAN VIGEON, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-02-CV-14 - October 9, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Arnold Moss, Texas prisoner #935058, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50380
Summary Calendar
ROBERT ARNOLD MOSS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUSAN JEAN VIGEON,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-02-CV-14
--------------------
October 9, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Arnold Moss, Texas prisoner #935058, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Moss moves for appointment of counsel.
His motion is DENIED.
Moss does not allege that Susan Jean Vigeon was a state
actor; Vigeon therefore could not be liable for a federal civil
rights violation arising from any actions involving Moss unless
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50380
-2-
she was conspiring with a state actor. See Cinel v. Connick,
15
F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1994). Moss does not allege any
conspiracy involving a state actor; he has failed to allege any
nonfrivolous claims against Vigeon.
Moss’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal
of Moss’s action and the dismissal of his appeal count as two
“strikes” against Moss for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Moss
is warned that once he obtains three “strikes” he will be barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or
appeal unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DENIED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. ALL MOTIONS DENIED.