Antonio Lacy v. Norris Jackson, et al, No. 13-41257 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-41257 Document: 00512852541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-41257 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 1, 2014 ANTONIO M. LACY, Plaintiff-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. WARDEN NORRIS JACKSON; SERGEANT MAYER, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CV-330 Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Antonio M. Lacy, Texas prisoner # 594575, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging the forfeiture of funds from his inmate trust account following his disciplinary conviction for trafficking and trading. Lacy is barred from proceeding IFP because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he has brought a civil action in a court of the United States that 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-41257 Document: 00512852541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 No. 13-41257 was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Lacy v. Velasquez, 54 F. App’x 798 (5th Cir. 2002); Lacy v. Collins, 1995 WL 535114 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 1995); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, nothing in the record reflects that Lacy is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). Accordingly, Lacy’s IFP status is decertified, and the appeal is dismissed. Lacy has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 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.