From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorrells v. Lopatowski

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 15, 2008
265 F. App'x 381 (5th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-51015 Summary Calendar.

February 15, 2008.

Earl Sorrells, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Christine G. Edwards, City of Austin Law Department, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 1:04-CV-1096.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.


Earl Sorrells, Texas prisoner # 0404860, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for relief under FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Sorrells has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court's certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1997). Sorrells also seeks appointment of counsel on appeal.

In his Rule 60(b) motion, Sorrells alleged that the defendants wrongfully arrested and prosecuted him through fraud and distortion of the facts. He repeats this bare allegation in his appeal of the denial of his motion. These conclusory assertions were and remain insufficient to show the kind of extraordinary circumstances required to warrant Rule 60(b) relief. See Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002). Sorrells has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Sorrells additionally raises claims that this court considered and rejected in his appeal of dismissal of his civil rights complaint, which claims are governed by the law of the case. See Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893, 896 (5th Cir. 2006). For these reasons, Sorrells' appeal is without arguable legal merit and is thus frivolous.

The district court's certification that Sorrells' appeal is not taken in good faith is upheld, Sorrells' motions for appointment of counsel and leave to proceed IFP on appeal are denied, and this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Sorrells is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to 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.


Summaries of

Sorrells v. Lopatowski

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 15, 2008
265 F. App'x 381 (5th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Sorrells v. Lopatowski

Case Details

Full title:Earl SORRELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Trooper FNU LOPATOWSKI; Amanda…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 15, 2008

Citations

265 F. App'x 381 (5th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Sampson v. Russo

Therefore, they do not meet the “extraordinary circumstances” test required under Rule 60(b). See Vance v.…