Filed: Sep. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-61123 Summary Calendar FIFI DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus MARCUS GORDON; MIKE MOORE, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi; LAWRENCE KELLY, Respondents-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:02-CV-84-LN - Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Ci
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-61123 Summary Calendar FIFI DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus MARCUS GORDON; MIKE MOORE, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi; LAWRENCE KELLY, Respondents-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:02-CV-84-LN - Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Cir..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61123
Summary Calendar
FIFI DAVIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
MARCUS GORDON; MIKE MOORE,
Attorney General for the State
of Mississippi; LAWRENCE KELLY,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:02-CV-84-LN
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fifi Davis, Mississippi prisoner # R6964, appeals the
district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee of her
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging her three convictions for
uttering forgery. She contends that she was indigent and could not
afford the $5 filing fee, that her family had sent the funds, that
the court should have removed the funds from her prison account,
and that the court denied her due process by dismissing the case
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61123
-2-
without holding a hearing. Davis has not shown that the district
court abused its discretion in dismissing her habeas petition.
See Martinez v. Johnson,
104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997).
Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.