627 Fed.Appx. 369 (5th Cir. 2015), 15-60114, Evans v. Wright

Docket Nº:15-60114
Citation:627 Fed.Appx. 369
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:DONOVAN EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WHITNEY WRIGHT; WENDIE FOOR; DANIEL STARKS; ADLEAN JONES, Defendants-Appellees
Attorney:DONOVAN EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Meridian, MS. For WHITNEY WRIGHT, WENDIE FOOR, DANIEL STARKS, ADLEAN JONES, Defendants - Appellees: Lee Thaggard, Esq., Barry, Palmer, Thaggard, May & Bailey, L.L.P., Meridian, MS.
Judge Panel:Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 22, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 369

627 Fed.Appx. 369 (5th Cir. 2015)

DONOVAN EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WHITNEY WRIGHT; WENDIE FOOR; DANIEL STARKS; ADLEAN JONES, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-60114

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

December 22, 2015

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. USDC No. 3:13-CV-998.

AFFIRMED; BAR IMPOSED.

DONOVAN EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Meridian, MS.

For WHITNEY WRIGHT, WENDIE FOOR, DANIEL STARKS, ADLEAN JONES, Defendants - Appellees: Lee Thaggard, Esq., Barry, Palmer, Thaggard, May & Bailey, L.L.P., Meridian, MS.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:[*]

Donovan Evans, a pretrial detainee at the Lauderdale County Detention Center, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages on the basis that the defendants and fellow inmates harassed him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed Evans's action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

A district court is required to dismiss a prisoner's complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Evans does not challenge the district court's determination that his action was subject to dismissal on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Evans also does not challenge the district court's alternative decision that his action was subject to dismissal on the basis that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The dismissal by the district court of Evans's complaint counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Evans has already accumulated at...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP