Filed: Jul. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 24, 2015 No. 14-20144 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ROBERT JAMES FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13
Summary: Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 24, 2015 No. 14-20144 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ROBERT JAMES FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-..
More
Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 24, 2015
No. 14-20144 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
ROBERT JAMES FOX,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-1880
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Robert James Fox appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights complaint, liberally construed, as barred by the “three
strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He asserts that he has no knowledge
of any strikes.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2015
No. 14-20144
In 2001, the Northern District of Texas concluded that Fox had a pattern
of filing frivolous lawsuits and sanctioned Fox by prohibiting him from filing
any future litigation in the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining
permission. In dismissing the instant case, the district court relied on that
earlier district court’s order to determine that the instant complaint was
barred under § 1915(g). However, this 2001 order is not a strike under §
1915(g), and there is no record of any other cases where Fox, “while
incarcerated or detained in any facility,” brought “an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it [was] frivolous,
malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” §
1915(g).
Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Fox had three
strikes at the time he filed the instant lawsuit and in concluding that Fox was
barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP. Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
2