Vernon King, Jr. v. Brad Livingston, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-20262 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EBC, Judge: ECP, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 05/01/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP in accordance with PLRA filed by Appellant Mr. Vernon King, Jr. [8211562-2]; denying as moot motion to stay proceedings filed by Appellant Mr. Vernon King, Jr. [8251987-2] [16-20262]

Case: 16-20262

Document: 00513946210

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-20262

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 10, 2017

VERNON KING, JR.,

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BRYAN COLLIER; WARDEN TONY R. CHARE; WARDEN CHRISTOPHER
LACOX; WARDEN GHEFF H. PRESTWOOD; MURRAY OWEN, MBA;
JULYE ERNISTINE, M.D.; MOTT KHARA, M.D.; ELDON L. MONK; M.
HENKEMEYER, R.N.; J. HORNS, Licensed Vocational Nurse; BOYCE,
Licensed Vocational Nurse; C. MCCAULEY, Licensed Vocational Nurse; S.
MADL, Licensed Vocational Nurse; SCOTT, R.N.; RUSSELL, R.N.; CAPTAIN
R. COOK; MAJOR M. B. CROW; LIEUTENANT C. A. APPLEWHITE;
SERGEANT J. JACKSON; OFFICER S. GRANT; OFFICER HENRY,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-943
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Vernon King, Jr., Texas prisoner # 590316, moves this court for
authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20262

Document: 00513946210

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

No. 16-20262
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. King has failed to show that he
should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that
his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See
Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d
562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). King’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.
The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with
the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th
Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed as
frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. King’s motion to stay proceedings is denied as
moot.
IFP DENIED; STAY DENIED AS MOOT; APPEALS DISMISSED.

2