United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30255
Conference Calendar
DARRELL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RAYMOND C. BIGELOW, District Court Judge Section “I”,
Orleans Criminal District Court,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:05-CV-6647
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell Johnson, Louisiana prisoner # 114419, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
The district court denied Johnson’s motion to appeal IFP and
certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By
moving for IFP, Johnson is challenging the district court’s
certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30255
-2-
Johnson argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because Judge Bigelow is not judicially
immune from claims for equitable relief and for attorney’s fees.
He also argues that federal courts, via § 1983, may address
unconstitutional actions taken by state courts by awarding
injunctive relief.
Johnson is correct that judicial immunity does not bar
claims for injunctive or declaratory relief in civil rights
actions. See Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 525 (5th Cir.
1985). The dismissal of his claims for such relief was
nevertheless appropriate as the federal courts have no authority
to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the
performance of their duties. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County
Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Johnson’s
request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which
allows a district court, in its discretion, to award attorney’s
fees to a prevailing party in a § 1983 action, was also properly
dismissed as Johnson did not prevail in his § 1983 suit. See
§ 1988.
As Johnson has not shown that the district court’s dismissal
of his appeal was incorrect, his request for IFP is denied and
his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of his
§ 1983 suit and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous each count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
No. 06-30255
-3-
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th
Cir. 1996). Johnson is cautioned that once he accumulates three
strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.