United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20034
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM S. KELLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF TEXAS; A. M. STRINGFELLOW;
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
JIMMY ALFORD; LESLIE WOODS; ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1347
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Steed Kelley, Texas prisoner # 457296, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court’s dismissal was based,
in part, on Kelley’s failure to comply with a 1997 sanction order
issued by the Northern District of Texas, which prohibited Kelley
from filing any new complaints without first obtaining permission
from an Article III or magistrate judge (the “1997 Order”).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20034
-2-
Kelley takes issue with the district court’s treatment of
his substantive claims. He also challenges, among other things,
the district court’s newly-imposed sanctions and denial of
Kelley’s motions for recusal and injunctive relief. Kelley does
not address the district court’s finding that he failed to comply
with the 1997 Order. See Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066,
1067 (5th Cir. 1998).
By failing to address the issue concerning his compliance
with the 1997 Order, Kelley has abandoned any argument regarding
this basis for the dismissal of his complaint. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Kelley failed to
comply with the 1997 Order, his request for injunctive relief was
properly denied. Similarly, Kelley fails to explain how the
district court’s failure to conduct a show cause hearing with
respect to its newly-imposed sanctions constituted an abuse of
discretion. In any event, based on Kelley’s history of filing
frivolous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, he was not entitled to a
hearing prior to the imposition of sanctions. See Moody v.
Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988).
Kelley’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. Kelley’s argument that Judge Lake should recuse himself
upon remand is therefore moot. Kelley’s motion to expedite his
appeal is denied.
Kelley is warned that the filing of frivolous pleadings in
this court or in the district court or the prosecution of
No. 04-20034
-3-
frivolous actions or appeals will subject him to sanctions beyond
those prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), including monetary
penalties and restrictions on his ability to file actions and
appeals.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION TO EXPEDITE
DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.