Carlos Love v. Kelly Siegler, No. 15-20107 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-20107 Summary Calendar FILED December 21, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CARLOS LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KELLY J. SIEGLER, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CV-3583 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Love, Texas prisoner # 582511, appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. According to Love, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly J. Siegler violated a plea agreement with him by filing a false offense report with the Texas Department of Correctional Justice (TDCJ) and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Love contends that Siegler acted beyond the scope of her duties 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-20107 as a prosecutor when she falsely identified him as a sex offender in the offense report. The offense report which Love submitted with his complaint allegedly showing that Siegler acted beyond the scope of her authority and filed false charges against him supports neither assertion. The affidavit Love submits of the Director of Classification and Records for the Correctional Institutions Division of the TDCJ similarly fails to support his claims against Siegler. Rather, the affidavit indicates only that prison authorities have reviewed and will correct Love’s records to eliminate erroneous references to a sexual assault of the victim by Love. Even under de novo review, therefore, Love fails to show error in the district court’s conclusion that his complaint contained insufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief against Siegler that was plausible on its face. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013); Johnson v. Kearns, 870 F.2d 992, 997-98 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Love’s § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Love has filed previously two § 1983 complaints that the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction to award monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities. See Love v. Owens, No. 1:13-CV-574, slip op. at 1-2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015); Love v. Jenkins, No. 1:13-CV-568, slip op at 1-2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015); see also Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, Love has accumulated three strikes for purposes of § 1915(g), and the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar is IMPOSED. As a result, Love is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil 2 Case: 15-20107 Document: 00513316357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-20107 action or appeal that is filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 3
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.
