IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60475
Summary Calendar
LOUIS DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; JOSEPH
W. GEX; JAMES G. TUCKER, III;
CHARLES E. WOOD; MISSISSIPPI BAR,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:96CV190BrR
______________________________________
*********************************************
LOUIS DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES G. TUCKER, III,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:96CV288BrR
_____________________________________
June 20, 1997
June 20, 1997
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Louis Davis, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #16425, appeals the dismissal of his 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.
Davis is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee; however, he shall make monthly
payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). The agency having custody of Davis is directed to forward payments from his prisoner
account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the
filing fee is paid. See id.
Davis’ trial and appellate counsel are private parties and therefore are not state actors under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970); Hobbs v. Hawkins, 968
F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1992). The state prosecutor is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994). The State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Bar,
as an “arm” of the state, are absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Nordgren
v. Hafter, 789 F.2d 334, 336-37 (5th Cir.); Voisin’s Oyster House, Inc. v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 186
(5th Cir. 1986).
Davis’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d.
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R.
42.2. The motion to file supplemental briefs is DENIED.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule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.