Jerrell Marshall v. Department of Corrections, et, No. 18-30745 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 18-30745 Document: 00514754070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-30745 JERRELL MARSHALL, FILED December 10, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES M. LEBLANC; JERRY GOODWIN; KEVIN WYLES, Defendants - Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:18-CV-576 Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerrell Marshall, Louisiana prisoner # 470174, moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his purported civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also moves for appointment of counsel. In his complaint, Marshall alleged that he had been held past his release date. Because he sought immediate release from prison, in addition to money damages, the district court held that the complaint was, in substance, a habeas 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-30745 Document: 00514754070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2018 No. 18-30745 corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that Marshall had not exhausted his state court remedies. The district court denied Marshall leave to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In this court, Marshall repeats his claim of wrongful detention, but he does not challenge the district court’s reasons for the dismissal or the certification. See id. Because he fails to show any issue of arguable merit, his appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The motion for leave to appeal IFP is DENIED; the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED; and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.