Primeaux v. Solem, et al, No. 4:1984cv04086 - Document 21 (D.S.D. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 19 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by U.S. District Judge John B. Jones on 8/13/09. (DJP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION FILED AUG 132009, ~~ **************************************************** ROSCOE PRIMEAUX, Petitioner, -vsHERMAN SOLEM, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary; and MARK MEIERHENRY, Attorney General; Respondents. * * * * * * * * CIV. 84-4086 OPINION AND ORDER * * * * **************************************************** Despite this case having been dismissed nearly 25 years ago, Petitioner Roscoe Primeaux, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment Under Rule 60(b) on June 29, 2009. The court denied the motion on July 1,2009, and also denied a certificate of appealability. Petitioner appeals and requests to proceed in forma pauperis. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault, and on December 18, 1981, he was sentenced to life in prison with concurrent terms of four years and six years on the aggravated assault counts. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal by the South Dakota Supreme Court. See State v. Primeaux, 328 N.W.2d 256 (S.D. 1982). Petitioner has filed at least two state habeas petitions. Petitioner has also filed five other federal petitions: CIV. 88-4098, which was dismissed without prejudice on June 27, 1988; CIV. 94-4022, which was dismissed on its merits and with prejudice June 14, 1995; CIV. 96-4296, which was dismissed without prejudice on January 17, 2001, CIV. 04-4117, which was dismissed on December 20,2004 and, most recently, CIV. 08-4082, which was dismissed on July 7, 2008. ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A) and the provisions of the Prisoner Litigation Refonn Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915, et seq, it is detennined Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous and without merit and his motion to proceed in fonna pauperis on appeal (Doc. 19) is DENIED. Dated this /.J ~ay of August, 2009. 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.
