IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51155
Conference Calendar
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; L. STUART PLATT, U.S. MAGISTRATE;
W. ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE; KAREN Y. COREY-STEELE;
STEPHEN FRENCH, FBI Agent; MARK ROOMBERG, Assistant U.S.
Attorney; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER AT FORT
WORTH, TEXAS; EMILY FALLIS, Psychologist; DAVID GREEHAW, Attorney
at Law; CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Midland-Odessa
Division; JOE CONNELLY, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CV-167
- - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Keith Russell Judd, federal prisoner # 11593-051, has filed
this interlocutory appeal in a civil rights lawsuit which has
since been dismissed by the district court for failure to state a
claim for relief. Judd moves this court to appeal in forma
pauperis (IFP), for immediate release from custody, to expedite
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51155
-2-
his appeal, and to consolidate this appeal with appeal No. 98-
51135. The motions for IFP, immediate release, and to expedite
the appeal are DENIED and the motion to consolidate the appeal is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Our review of the record reveals that Judd’s appeal is
without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Two other appeals filed by
Judd have been dismissed as frivolous by this court. Judd v.
University of New Mexico, No. 97-50242 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 1997);
Judd v. United States District Court, No. 98-51119 (5th Cir. Apr.
15, 1999). Judd may no longer proceed IFP in any civil action or
appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g); Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
MOTIONS FOR IFP, IMMEDIATE RELEASE, AND EXPEDITED APPEAL
DENIED; MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DENIED AS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED;
APPELLANT BARRED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).