Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rice v. Oliver
Citation: 492 F. App'x 464Docket: No. 12-40180
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; October 16, 2012; Federal Appellate Court
Alonzo Demont Rice, a Texas inmate, has been denied permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) after a magistrate judge determined his appeal was not taken in good faith. Rice, who consented to the magistrate’s judgment, is appealing the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim. He alleges vulnerability to attacks from other inmates and claims retaliation from several prison officials through disciplinary actions. Rice has filed motions for injunctive relief and for counsel appointment, but does not challenge the dismissal of other defendants, indicating he abandoned that argument. The court reviews the appeal for meritorious legal issues, determining that the dismissal was both frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Rice's assertion regarding the denial of presenting inmate affidavits during a hearing was found unpersuasive since he had the opportunity to elaborate on his claims. His failure-to-protect claim lacked merit as he did not demonstrate that the conditions posed a substantial risk of serious harm. Additionally, he had no liberty interest in his housing classification and did not establish a specific constitutional right violation for his retaliation claim. His request for an injunction pending appeal was also denied due to insufficient grounds. The motion for counsel was denied as well due to a lack of exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the court ruled that Rice's appeal does not present any legally arguable points, leading to the denial of his IFP motion and dismissal of the appeal as frivolous. This dismissal, along with the previous district court action, counts as two strikes against Rice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), warning him that accumulating three strikes will bar him from proceeding IFP in future actions unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The opinion is not intended for publication as precedent.