Ronnie Lyles v. Mary Ann Lemmon, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30276 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 02/14/2011 [10-30276]

Ronnie Lyles v. Mary Ann Lemmon, et al Document: 00511331253 Case: 10-30276

Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-30276 S u m m a r y Calendar December 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R O N N IE M. LYLES, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. M A R Y ANN VIAL LEMMON; KAREN WELLS ROBY; PETER BEER; JOSEPH C . WILKINSON, JR.; SALLY SHUSHAN; SEACOR MARINE, INC.; WILLIAM B . SCHWARTZ; LAW FIRM OF BURKE & MAYER; CHRISTOPHER B. E D W A R D S ; LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER B. EDWARDS; FERDINAND J . KLEPPNER; LAW OFFICES OF FERDINAND J. KLEPPNER; JOHN G. D E R U S S Y ; LAW OFFICES OF JOHN G. DERUSSY; ERIC J. PEARSON; RUSH F O U N D A T I O N HOSPITAL, Director; NEWELL NORMAND; PAUL D. C O N N IC K , JR.; MS. AMY; CHARLES B. PLATTSMIER; TIMOTHY J. P A L M A T I E R ; JAMES M. LEBLANC; JAMES CALDWELL, also known as B u d d y ; MICHAEL MUKASEY, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:08-CV-4127

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-30276 Document: 00511331253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 No. 10-30276 R o n n ie M. Lyles, Louisiana prisoner # 102175, appeals the dismissal with p r e ju d ic e of his civil rights complaint against various defendants who allegedly c o n s p ir e d to violate his constitutional rights in connection with a previous civil s u it he filed against his former employer, Seacor Marine Inc. ("Seacor"), and in c o n n e c t io n with his arrest and convictions for two counts of indecent behavior w it h a juvenile. The district court found that Lyles was prohibited from

p r o c e e d in g in forma pauperis (IFP) in connection with his civil rights suit b e c a u s e he had three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he failed to show he w a s in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The district court also noted t h a t various judges and other named defendants were absolutely or qualifiedly im m u n e . O n appeal, Lyles argues the merits of his Seacor-related claims and claims r e la t e d to his convictions. He asserts that he was not barred from proceeding I F P in the district court under § 1915(g) because he does not have three strikes, a n d , alternatively, because "the risk of future injury" in his case is sufficient to s a t is fy the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). See § 1915(g). He argues t h a t the district court's findings that he had three strikes and that the d e fe n d a n t s were immune from suit were not based upon the evidence and were c le a r ly erroneous. T h e district court correctly concluded that Lyles could not proceed IFP in c o n n e c t io n with his civil rights suit because he has three strikes under § 1915(g), a n d he failed to establish that he was under imminent danger of serious physical in ju r y . See § 1915(g); Lyles v. Oubrey, No. 03-1623 (E.D. La. 2003); Lyles v. L e m m o n , No. 04-2470 (E.D. La. 2004); and Lyles v. Lemmon, No. 05-30091 (5th C ir . 2006). In addition, Lyles makes only conclusory and speculative arguments t h a t Judge Lemmon and "her co-defendants" are not immune from suit because t h e y conspired to violate his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Lyles has not s h o w n that the district court erred in finding that certain defendants were

2

Case: 10-30276 Document: 00511331253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2010 No. 10-30276 a b s o lu t e ly or qualifiedly immune. The district court's dismissal with prejudice o f Lyles's civil rights suit is AFFIRMED. A s Lyles has accumulated more than three strikes under § 1915(g), he is B A R R E D under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed w h ile he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent d a n g e r of serious physical injury. See 1915(g). Lyles is CAUTIONED that a d d it io n a l frivolous or duplicitous pleadings in this court or any other court s u b je c t to this court's jurisdiction will result in the imposition of further s a n c t io n s , including monetary sanctions.

3