Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 F. App'x 693

Dockeray v. Price

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided September 24, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-09-24

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. · McNeal v. Bh Papasan · Salinas v. Sun Oil Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-09-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM: *

¶1 William J. Dockeray, Jr., Texas prisoner # 563359, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in which he asserted that various prison officials violated a plethora of his constitutional rights. Docker-ay has moved for leave to supplement his appellate brief with a one-page omission. That motion is GRANTED.

¶2 Dockeray argues that his original complaint, filed in the Southern District of Texas, was improperly severed. The issue of the propriety of that order is not properly before the court. Dockeray also asserts that his claims are not untimely. We will not address this assertion because it stems from Dockeray’s mistaken belief that his claims were dismissed as time-barred. Nor will we address Dockeray’s assertion, not contained in his original complaint, that prison officials have blocked his access to the courts during the pendency of this action. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). The court would note, however, that this claim is refuted by the fact that Dockeray filed numerous documents in this matter before the trial court, and that most of these documents were irrelevant.

¶3*694 Dockeray also challenges the district court’s dismissal of his claims based on his failure to comply with court orders that he file an amended complaint. The district court’s order dismissing Dockeray’s claims due to his failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789 (5th Cir.1988); see also Salinas v. Sun Oil Co., 819 F.2d 105, 106 (5th Cir.1987). Rather than comply with the court’s order, Dockeray filed numerous documents not responsive to the court order. Even after the second order was entered, Dockeray did not comply.

¶4 Accordingly, that order is AFFIRMED.

¶5 Dockeray is reminded that this court has already imposed the three-strikes bar pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Dockeray v. Ozz, 105 Fed.Appx. 609 (5th Cir.2004) (unpublished). Accordingly, Dockeray may no longer 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

*

¶6 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.

/109/fappx/693 · .json · Public domain