IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50478
Summary Calendar
ALEX HAMILTON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RUDY ESTRADA ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-95-CV-484
- - - - - - - - - -
June 6, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The motion filed by Alex Hamilton, Jr., federal prisoner
#02598-095, to reinstate his appeal is GRANTED. Hamilton’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is GRANTED.
Hamilton is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $5.63.
IT IS ORDERED that Hamilton authorize the appropriate prison
authorities to withdraw the initial partial filing fee from his
trust fund account in accordance with the procedures required by
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
the prison and to forward payment of the initial partial filing
fee the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas. Thereafter, Hamilton shall make periodic payments to
the clerk of the same district court until the full appellate
filing fee of $105 is paid.
To accomplish these periodic payments, Hamilton is directed
to execute all consents and forms required by the Federal Prison
Camp in El Paso, Texas, to authorize the withdrawals from his
trust fund account. In accordance with its standard procedure,
the prison having custody of Hamilton is directed to periodically
forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the
district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10.
Regarding Hamilton’s challenge to the district court’s
partial grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, we have
reviewed Hamilton’s briefs and the record, and find that the
district court did not commit reversible error. Weyant v.
Acceptance Ins. Co., 917 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1990); Varnado
v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Stephenson v.
Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994).
Hamilton’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 Hamilton that future frivolous civil suits and
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. Hamilton is cautioned further to review any
pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise
arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL REINSTATED; IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS
WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.