IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40627
Conference Calendar
JERRY E. EASLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-96-CV-332
- - - - - - - - - -
February 11, 1999
Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:**
Jerry E. Easley, # 421286, appeals the district court’s
denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. He argues that his
due process and equal protection claims are now ripe because his
word processor is not working. The word-processor claim was no
longer before the district court when it entered the current
dismissal order. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying his motion for reconsideration on that basis.
*
This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §
46(d).
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-40627
-2-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 38 F.3d 1404,
1408 (5th Cir. 1994).
Easley also argues that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his case as frivolous without service of
summons after he paid a partial filing fee pursuant to Grissom v.
Scott, 934 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1991). Easley filed this complaint
on July 3, 1996, after the effective date of the PLRA. Grissom
no longer applies. This argument lacks merit.
Easley argues that the district court failed to comply with
this court’s direction in its opinion remanding the case to
further develop the facts of his retaliation claim. The district
court found that Easley had agreed to settle all of his then
pending retaliation claims on December 6, 1996, and that he had
made misrepresentations to the Fifth Circuit about the continued
viability of those claims. Easley does not make any argument in
his appellate brief challenging the district court’s finding that
he had already settled those claims.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's order
and find no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
We caution Easley that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Easley is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
No. 98-40627
-3-
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.