Harvey Sossamon, III v. Gilbert Campuzano

Case: 09-10662 Document: 00511001780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 12, 2010 No. 09-10662 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk HARVEY LEROY SOSSAMON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GILBERT CAMPUZANO, Regional Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Region VI; TERRY D. TUCKER, Assistant Warden Montford Unit; GEORGE ALLEN, Assistant Warden Montford Unit; GUY SMITH, Medical Liasion Officer; TERESA ZEPEDA, Nurse; JANE DOE, Nurse; KARIN FRANKLIN, Nurse; LOU ANN BOLING, Nurse; JANE DOE RICHARDSON, Nurse; MARION O. WILLIAMS, Hospital Administrator; JANE DOE ENGLISH, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 5:08-CV-149 Case: 09-10662 Document: 00511001780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 No. 09-10662 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harvey Sossamon, III, Texas prisoner # 120297, has been barred from pro- ceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Sossamon v. Cook, No. 07-10429 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2008) (unpublished); Sossamon v. Livingston, No. A-08CA-465- SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2008) (unpublished). The district court improvidently granted Sossamon leave to proceed IFP on appeal. Accordingly, Sossamon’s IFP status is decertified, and the appeal is dis- missed. Sossamon has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full ap- pellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. Sossamon’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINT- MENT OF COUNSEL 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 2