Filed: Oct. 24, 2006
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 October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30680 Conference Calendar ANTHONY JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CURT WAINWRIGHT; JOSH OTWELL; ANGIE HUFF; RAY HANSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:05-CV-34 - Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antho
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30680 Conference Calendar ANTHONY JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CURT WAINWRIGHT; JOSH OTWELL; ANGIE HUFF; RAY HANSON, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:05-CV-34 - Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anthon..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30680
Conference Calendar
ANTHONY JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CURT WAINWRIGHT; JOSH OTWELL; ANGIE HUFF; RAY HANSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:05-CV-34
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Joseph Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 397646,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Williams argues that the district court misconstrued his
complaint as seeking relief for a deprivation of property which
occurred in November 2003, when in fact the complaint alleged
claims arising out of a January 2005 incident of retaliation.
The record shows that Williams submitted the complaint to
prison authorities for mailing on December 26, 2004; thus, it is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30680
-2-
not possible that the complaint alleged claims arising out of an
incident occurring in January 2005. Accordingly, the dismissal
of the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. See Siglar v.
Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Williams’s appeal
is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of Williams’s complaint and
this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387
(5th Cir. 1996). Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates
three strikes, he may no longer 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 § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.