Joe Amerson, Jr. v. Christopher Epp


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [10-60637 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 07/28/2011; denying motion for sanctions filed by Appellant Mr. Joe Louis Amerson, Jr. [6819216-2]; denying motion recuse judge from panel filed by Appellant Mr. Joe Louis Amerson, Jr. [6818002-2]; denying motion authorize prep of transcript at government expense filed by Appellant Mr. Joe Louis Amerson, Jr. [6761434-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP in accordance with PLRA filed by Appellant Mr. Joe Louis Amerson, Jr. [6645332-2] [10-60637]

Download PDF
Case: 10-60637 Document: 00511532075 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-60637 Summary Calendar July 7, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOE LOUIS AMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LAURA STEWART TILLEY, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:08-CV-249 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellee Joe Louis Amerson, Jr., Mississippi prisoner # 36217, moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Amerson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). He also seeks the production of transcripts at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 10-60637 Document: 00511532075 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2011 No. 10-60637 Amerson argues that his right of access to the courts was violated by legal Assistance Director Laura Tilley. He specifically alleges that Tilley mishandled a state postconviction application and caused that application to be dismissed as untimely. Amerson has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). He has not established that Tilley did not fulfill her legal obligation to mail the application within the required limitations period. Amerson also has not demonstrated that his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim was hindered by Tilley’s alleged actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351-52 (1996). Thus, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Amerson’s motions for the production of records and transcripts, sanctions against the clerk of the district court, and the recusal of judges are DENIED. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Amerson is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP 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). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?