eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-12

Raymond Carr v. Ed Gonzalez ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-20420   Document: 00515664302     Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/07/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 7, 2020
No. 19-20420                     Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                        Clerk
Raymond E. Carr,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, Chief, Harris County Sheriff’s
Department, in his individual and official capacity; Probable Cause
Judge, in his individual and official capacity; UTMB Medical
Department, in its individual and official capacity; ISS
Facility/International Airline Security, in its individual and
official capacity; New Hope Housing, in its individual and official
capacity; Art Acevedo, Chief, Houston Police Department,
in his individual and official capacity; Wells Fargo Bank, in its
individual and official capacity; Krash Cabin Management, in its
individual and official capacity; Imperio Used Car Dealership;
Texas Post Master General, in his individual and official capacity;
Houston Police Department; United States Postal
Service,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 19-20621
_____________
Case: 19-20420      Document: 00515664302          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/07/2020
No. 19-20420
c/w No. 19-20621
Lord of the Streets Raymond E. Carr,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Civil Rights Project; Lone Star Legal Aid; Beacon Law
Center; 7031 Koll Center; Metropolitan Transit
Authority; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; Harris County Hospital District; Biomat
Plasma Center; Coordinated Access Housing; Texas
Health and Human Services Commission; Houston
Community College; Assurance Wireless; FBI Agency,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-1754
USDC No. 4:18-CV-3551
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Raymond E. Carr appeals the district court’s dismissal without
prejudice of Carr v. Gonzalez, No. 4:19-CV-1754, as barred by the
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) bar. See § 1915(g). He also appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reopen or amend the dismissal with prejudice of Carr v. Civil Rights
Project, No. 4:18-CV-3551, for want of prosecution.         However, he has
abandoned, by failing to brief, the only cognizable issues on appeal. See Yohey
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 19-20420       Document: 00515664302           Page: 3     Date Filed: 12/07/2020
No. 19-20420
c/w No. 19-20621
v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgments of
the district court are therefore AFFIRMED.
Carr’s motions to supplement the record reference events that post-
date the filing of these appeals. As those facts cannot be considered for the
first time on appeal, those motions are DENIED. See Theriot v. Parish of
Jefferson,
    185 F.3d 477
    , 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co.,
    183 F.3d 339
    , 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Carr has not shown that he is
entitled to injunctive relief from this court in the first instance, his motions
for preliminary and permanent injunctions are also DENIED. See Byrum v.
Landreth,
    566 F.3d 442
    , 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of
Gambell,
    480 U.S. 531
    , 546 n.12 (1987); Greene v. Fair,
    314 F.2d 200
    , 202 (5th
Cir. 1963).
Carr is REMINDED that, because he has accumulated at least three
strikes under § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding 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. He is also
WARNED that, regardless of the § 1915(g) bar, any frivolous, repetitive, or
otherwise abusive filings that he files will invite the imposition of additional
sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions
on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s
jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; REMINDED OF
THREE STRIKES BAR; ADDITIONAL SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
3