IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40001
(Summary Calendar)
NORRIS HICKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J.A. COLLINS, J.E. STICE; M. HERKLOTZ;
R. DIAZ; L.W. WOODS; OFF. KRUEGER;
T. EASON; K. PITTMAN; K. DIXON; S. BROWN;
D. MAHONEYGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. CA-C-94-424)
- - - - - - - - - -
May 15, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norris Hicks appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
claims. Hicks argues that the district court abused its discretion
by going beyond the scope of remand in determining that he was not
prejudiced by any alleged refusal to certify the amount in his
inmate account; by failing to give him notice of the evidentiary
hearing; and by failing to liberally construe his pleadings as an
application to present evidence to a grand jury concerning the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
defendants’ allegedly unconstitutional actions. We have reviewed
the record, the district court’s decision, and Hicks’ brief, and we
find no error. See Hicks v. Collins, C-94-424 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21,
1995).
This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983). It is DISMISSED as such. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Hicks that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him
or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Hicks is further cautioned to review all pending appeals
to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous
because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
2