Allan Story v. Ralph Strother
691 F. App'x 208
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Allan Latoi Story, a Texas prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.
- Story filed multiple motions in this court: to supplement his brief, to take discovery, for judicial notice about discovery, for production of documents, and for appointment of counsel.
- Story's filings focused on habeas-related claims about his conviction rather than addressing the district court's reasoning for dismissing his § 1983 complaint.
- The Fifth Circuit held that Story abandoned any challenge to the dismissal by failing to brief the district court's reasons and therefore dismissed the appeal as frivolous.
- The district court dismissal and this appellate dismissal counted as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); an earlier dismissal gave Story a third strike, barring in forma pauperis filings unless imminent danger of serious physical injury is shown.
- The court denied all pending motions except Story’s motion to supplement his brief and warned that future frivolous or repetitive filings could result in sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal properly challenges the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 complaint | Story argued detailed habeas-type constitutional errors regarding his conviction (seeking review) | The district court dismissed the § 1983 complaint as frivolous; appellees argued dismissal was proper and Story failed to contest the district court's reasoning on appeal | Appeal dismissed as frivolous for abandonment because Story did not brief the district court’s reasons |
| Motion to supplement brief and other procedural motions | Story sought leave to supplement, discovery, document production, and appointment of counsel | Appellate court evaluated procedural propriety and relevance to issues presented | Motion to supplement granted; all other motions denied |
| Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (three-strikes rule) | Story implicitly challenged access to IFP status by contesting dismissals | Court relied on prior frivolous dismissals and appellate dismissal as strikes | Court held Story has three strikes and is barred from proceeding IFP while incarcerated unless imminent danger shown |
| Imposition of future sanctions for frivolous filings | Story did not directly contest potential sanctions | Court emphasized Rule-based authority to deter abusive filings | Court warned Story that future frivolous or repetitive filings could prompt dismissal, monetary sanctions, and filing restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (failure to brief an issue constitutes abandonment on appeal)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them)
- Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2017) (counts frivolous dismissals as strikes under § 1915(g))
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (three-strikes rule application guidance)
- Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988) (court authority to sanction abusive litigation)