IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50907
Conference Calendar
__________________
JOE E. PERRYMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRY LEE HUDSPETH,
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, Chief
Judge,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CV-840
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe E. Perryman appeals the district court's dismissal of
his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d). Although cast as a civil rights action against Judge
Hudspeth, Perryman's complaint is, in essence, an attempt to
relitigate the issue that Judge Prado was biased against him in
his previous lawsuits. A § 1915(d) dismissal is appropriate when
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
No. 95-50907
-2-
a party attempts to relitigate issues decided adversely in a
prior lawsuit. See Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989).
Perryman's appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Perryman that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Perryman is further cautioned to review any 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.