Courtney Royal v. Dawn Grounds, et al, No. 11-51224 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-51224 Document: 00511879383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-51224 Summary Calendar June 7, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk COURTNEY ROYAL, Vampsh Black Sheep League of Doom Gardamun Family Circle Master Vampire High Priest, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAWN GROUNDS, Warden, Alfred D. Hughes Unit; CHARLES GRIFFIN, JR., Chaplain, Alfred D. Hughes Unit; ELLIS E. HUTCHISON, Chaplain, Alfred D. Hughes Unit; NELSON WALLACE, Chaplain; BILL AERCE, also known as Bill Pierce; ASSISTANT WARDEN DEVERY MOONEYHAM; ERVING JENSEN, Investigator #3, Alfred D. Hughes Unit; LEE KUZENKA, Investigator #2, Alfred D. Hughes Unit; BARRY MORAN, Assistant Regional Director; STEPHAN FULLMAN, Lieutenant, Law Library Supervisor; RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; BILLY PIERCE, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-136 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-51224 Document: 00511879383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2012 No. 11-51224 Courtney Royal, Texas prisoner # 627058, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on his civil rights claims. By moving for IFP status in this court, Royal is challenging the district court s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). Royal asserts, without further explanation, that he intends to raise on appeal issues involving summary judgment; religious items, food diets, and service; spirit advisor; black Bible; and rugs, rode, [and] beads. He does not address the district court s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith, nor does he address any of the district court s reasons for its certification decision. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, his challenge to the district court s certification decision is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, Royal has not shown that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous). Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Royal s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Royal is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP 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 § 1915(g). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
