Williams v. Green

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40938 Summary Calendar RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BOB GREEN, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Harrison County, TX., Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:96-CV-32 - - - - - - - - - - May 19, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The motion filed by Raymond Williams, Texas prisoner #745695, to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is GRANTED. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), we assess Williams an initial partial filing fee of $4.89. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be deducted from Williams’s prison * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 96-40938 - 2 - trust-fund account until the entire filing fee of $105 is paid. § 1915(b)(2). IT IS ORDERED that Williams authorize the appropriate prison authorities having custody of Williams to forward the initial partial filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Thereafter, the agency shall forward, in accordance with § 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income each time the amount in Williams’s account exceeds $10, until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. Regarding Williams’s challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous, we have reviewed Williams’s brief and the record and conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). Williams’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution Williams that future frivolous civil appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Williams 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.