IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30273
Conference Calendar
TERRANCE KEITH HUNT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DIANE MILLER; RICHARD L. STALDER;
D. MILTON MOORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC Nos. 95-CV-1141, 95-CV-1142, 95-CV-1143
- - - - - - - - - -
August 20, 1996
Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terrance Keith Hunt, #96917, contends that the district
court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint as
frivolous. An IFP complaint may be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d), the relevant portion of which has been
redesignated as § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), if it has no arguable basis
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-30273
-2-
in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir.
1993).
“[A] plaintiff may not seek a reversal in federal court of a
state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form
of a civil rights action.” Reed v. Terrell, 759 F.2d 472, 473
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 (1985); see Hale v.
Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1986). It is plain from
the history of this dispute, Hunt’s complaint, and Hunt’s brief
on appeal that the heart of this matter is Louisiana’s seizure of
Hunt’s funds. See Hunt v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d
96, 97 (5th Cir. 1993). Hunt’s funds were not seized by
employees of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections but
were seized pursuant to an order of Judge Moore. It is this
seizure warrant that Hunt seeks to overturn.
To the extent that Hunt asserts that the Department of
Corrections employees acted negligently in complying with the
amended seizure warrant issued by Judge Moore, the claim of
negligence will not support a § 1983 action. See Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). The district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing this complaint as frivolous.
This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Hunt is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
No. 96-30273
-3-
sanctions, Hunt is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.