United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10433
Conference Calendar
MICHAEL G. SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CINDY GROOMER; CAROLINE WOODBURN;
TROY C. BENNETT, JR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CV-128
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael G. Scott, Texas prisoner # 762996, appeals from the
dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for
failure to state a claim. Scott alleged in his complaint that
the defendants, who are state clerks of court, denied him access
to the court by conspiring to withhold his state habeas corpus
application. On appeal, Scott persists in this argument.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10433
-2-
Scott has not addressed the district court's conclusions
that his claims against Groomer were in her supervisory capacity
and failed to allege a causal connection between her actions and
the denial of a constitutional right or that Scott failed to show
how he was harmed by the alleged failure to process his pleading
properly. Accordingly, Scott has abandoned those issues on
appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, a review of Scott's
complaint shows that his bald allegations of a conspiracy are
insufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim.
See Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1987);
see also Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA) Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374
(5th Cir. 2003).
Scott has filed motions for the appointment of counsel, for
production of documents, and for transfer of custody. Those
motions are DENIED.
Scott's appeal is without merit and is frivolous. Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The
dismissal of the appeal counts as a strike against Scott for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Scott is CAUTIONED that if he
accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis
in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or
No. 03-10433
-3-
detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.