Jarrett v. Lloyds of London, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30102
Conference Calendar
GEORGE A. JARRETT, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LLOYD’S OF LONDON; XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY;
CAPITOL AREA LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-1057-C
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George A. Jarrett, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 339218, has
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after the
district court certified that he could offer no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Baugh v. Taylor, 117
F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court properly concluded that under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine it had no jurisdiction to consider Jarrett’s
challenge to a state-court summary judgment dismissing a legal
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-30102
-2-
malpractice claim. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923,
924 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923)). Accordingly, Jarrett
identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We uphold the
district court’s certification that the appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issues. Jarrett’s motion for IFP status is DENIED.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117
F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Any other outstanding motions are
DENIED.
The dismissal of Jarrett’s complaint and the dismissal of
this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for the purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Jarrett that once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not 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).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) WARNING
ISSUED; ALL OTHER MOTIONS DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --