Opinion
No. 3:10-CV-741-O (BH)
03-05-2019
REGINALD DONELL RICE, Plaintiff, v. CAREY D. COCKELL, et al., Defendants.
Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se prisoner case has been referred for findings, conclusions and recommendation. Before the Court is the plaintiff's Motion for C.O.A. and In Forma Pauperis, received March 5, 2019 (doc. 14). Based on the relevant filings, evidence and applicable law, the motion should be DENIED.
Reginald Donell Rice (Plaintiff), an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a civil rights action against three individuals for alleged violations of his constitutional rights in connection with state proceedings to terminate his parental rights and to place his infant daughter in the custody of Child Protective Services. (See doc. 1.) The case was dismissed on June 7, 2010, because Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the "three-strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he did not pay the filing fee. (See docs. 7, 8.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and to proceed in forma pauperis, received on January 17, 2019 (doc. 9). The motion was denied on February 21, 2019 (doc. 12). He filed a notice of appeal, received on March 5, 2019 (doc. 13). He now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
A COA is not required to appeal in a civil rights case. This case was dismissed because Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis and he did not pay the filing fee, and he is still barred from proceeding in forma pauperis by operation of the three-strikes rule.
Plaintiff's Motion for C.O.A. and In Forma Pauperis should be DENIED.
SIGNED this 5th day of March, 2019.
/s/_________
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
/s/_________
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE