IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-41001
Conference Calendar
BARRY ALLEN FISHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN WYATT et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:95-CV-311
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barry Allen Fisher, Texas state prisoner #488975, appeals
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as
frivolous. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is
GRANTED.
The Prison Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner appealing
IFP in a civil action to pay the full amount of the filing fee,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-41001
- 2 -
$105. Fisher is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the
initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be deducted from
Fisher’s prison trust-fund account until the entire filing fee is
paid. § 1915(b)(2).
IT IS ORDERED that Fisher pay the appropriate filing fee to
the clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of
Fisher’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of the filing
fee and forward for payment, in accordance with § 1915(b)(2), to
the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
monthly payments of 20 per cent of the preceding month’s income
each time the amount in Fisher’s account exceeds $10, until the
appellate filing fee of $105 is paid.
Fisher argues that the state trial court abused its
discretion in dismissing his state court action against the
defendants for assault and battery. Notwithstanding that Fisher
failed to address the reasons for the district court’s dismissal
of his lawsuit, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), the district court
lacked jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on a state
court judgment. Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 271 (1994).
Fisher’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
No. 96-41001
- 3 -
1983). We caution Fisher that future frivolous civil suits and
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. Fisher is cautioned further to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R.
42.2.