United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 20, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40518
RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-03-CV-29
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Texas prisoner # 623668, moves
to consolidate appeals number 03-40518 and 03-40541. Whitfield’s
motion to consolidate the appeals is DENIED. His motions for
orders to the warden of his place of incarceration to forward mail
and to supply him with legal writing material are DENIED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Whitfield seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to
appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus
claims. A COA may be issued only if the applicant “has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(2). When a district court denies 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of
the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, this court should grant a COA
only if the COA applicant can show that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the application has stated a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court’s procedural
ruling was correct. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Whitfield has failed to show that jurists of reason could
disagree about whether the district court’s procedural analysis was
correct. Whitfield’s request for a COA therefore is DENIED.
Whitfield’s argument that he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury is construed as a request to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claims and is DENIED. Whitfield is barred from proceeding
IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he has failed to show that he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because
Whitfield has failed to make the showing required to overcome the
bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has not paid the appellate filing
fee as to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, his appeal is DISMISSED as
2
to those claims. If Whitfield wishes for his appeal to be rein-
stated as to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, he must pay the Clerk of
the district court the full appellate filing fee within 15 days of
the date of this order and move in this court to reinstate the
appeal. Only the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims will be addressed should
Whitfield pay the filing fee and should the appeal be reinstated.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this court is authorized
to rule on any motion to reinstate this appeal.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS DENIED; COA DENIED; IFP
DENIED AS TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIMS; ALL OTHER MOTIONS DENIED;
APPEAL DISMISSED AS TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIMS.
3