Eric Flores v. Unknown TDCJ Official
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [17-10265 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: ECP , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate issue date is 12/13/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Flores [8476689-2] [17-10265]
Date Filed: 11/21/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
November 21, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNKNOWN TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:17-CV-20
Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves this court for authorization
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. As Flores has raised only fanciful allegations,
including claims that he has already been executed and that the defendants
have used “mind controlling computers” to cause transport correctional officers
to drive a prison bus into an oncoming train, he has failed to show that he
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 11/21/2017
should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that
his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See
Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d
562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Flores’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.
The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with
the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th
Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed as
frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. On November 6, 2017, we imposed a monetary
sanction in the amount of $100 and barred Flores from filing any pleading in
this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until that sanction
was paid in full. See Flores v. Moore, No. 17-20103 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017).
Because the instant appeal was pending while the recent sanction was
imposed, we will not impose an additional sanction in the instant case.
Nevertheless, Flores is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or
otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more
severe sanctions. Flores is DIRECTED to review all pending matters and move
to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?