Jackson v. Sorrels , 167 F. App'x 388 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10363
Summary Calendar
CHRIS JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT SORRELS, Burleson Police Department; ROBERT
HERNANDEZ, Tarrant County Police Department; UNKNOWN, Female
Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CV-29
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chris Jackson, pro se federal prisoner # 06914-089, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and
the district court’s denial of his motion to recuse. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review dismissal of an in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) under the same de novo
standard of review applicable to dismissals made pursuant to FED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10363
-2-
R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th
Cir. 1999). The sole argument that Jackson raises on appeal with
respect to the dismissal of his complaint is that the district
court failed to give him an opportunity to amend his complaint.
We reject this argument, as the record clearly reflects that the
district court afforded Jackson such an opportunity and Jackson
failed to provide sufficient additional facts in support of his
claim. The district court was not required to give Jackson
repeated opportunities to amend once it was evident that Jackson
had pleaded his best case, particularly as Jackson has failed to
identify what facts he could have pleaded that would have
supported his contentions. See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d
789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986).
As Jackson’s brief fails to address the merits of dismissal
for failure to state a claim, that issue is deemed abandoned.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Jackson’s additional contention that the district judge should
have recused himself because he presided over a prior proceeding
in which Jackson was a defendant is patently without merit. See
Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2003).
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Jackson’s appeal as
frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Jackson is cautioned that the dismissal
by the district court of his suit and the dismissal of his appeal
as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C.
No. 05-10363
-3-
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996). Jackson is cautioned that if he accumulates three
strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed
in forma pauperis 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 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.