Nobles v. Thrasher

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 96-11139
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
JAMES E NOBLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOWARD THRASHER; MARY MENOZ, Parole Board;
JAMES A COLLINS; RAY PARRA; LEWIS, Parole,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(3:96-CV-1950-G)
January 8, 1997
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James E. Nobles, a state prisoner, intended to appeal in forma
pauperis the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action
as frivolous. We find that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (“PLRA”), enacted April 26, 1996, bars Nobles’s in forma
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
pauperis appeal; accordingly, we dismiss his appeal without
prejudice.
Section 1915(g) of the PLRA provides that a prisoner may not
bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 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 is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Since August 27, 1996, well after enactment of the PLRA, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
dismissed nine of Nobles’s prisoner actions for frivolousness. See
Nobles v. Rodriguez, No. 3-96-CV-2544-P (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 1996);
Nobles v. Thrasher, No. 3-96-CV-2539-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1996);
Nobles v. Johnson, No. 3-96-CV-2543-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1996);
Nobles v. Thrasher, No. 3-96-CV-2546-X (N.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 1996);
Nobles v. Rodriguez, No. 3-96-CV-2545-G (N. D. Tex. Oct. 2, 1996);
Nobles v. Johnson, No. 3-96-CV-2540-R (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1996);
Nobles v. Johnson, No. 3-96-CV-1948-R (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 1996);
Nobles v. Rodriguez, No. 3-96-CV-1949-X (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 1996);
Nobles v. Thrasher, No. 3-96-CV-1950-G (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 1996).
The instant appeal is Nobles’s only current appeal from these
dismissals; indeed, Nobles has waived appeal of the dismissal of
-2-
seven of the eight other suits because the time for appeal has
expired with respect to each of those cases. See FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(1) (notice of appeal in civil case to be filed with clerk of
district court within thirty days after date of entry of judgment
or order appealed). As a result, Nobles has accumulated more than
three qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g).
Thus, Nobles cannot pursue the instant appeal in forma
pauperis; moreover, he may not while incarcerated proceed in forma
pauperis in any future civil actions or appeals in any federal
court unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” Nobles may, of course, pursue civil actions in federal
court at his own expense.
Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without prejudice
to Nobles’s pursuing it after payment of the applicable fee(s)
within thirty days of entry of this order. We order Nobles to
submit a copy of this order with any future civil complaint or
appeal he submits to any federal court while incarcerated.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
-3-