Eric Flores v. R. Moore, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [17-20236 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: PRO Mandate issue date is 12/20/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP in accordance with PLRA filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Flores [8487595-2] [17-20236]

Download PDF
Case: 17-20236 Document: 00514252114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-20236 FILED November 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ERIC FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. R. MOORE; M. ROESLER; J. PERATTER, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CV-661 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As Flores has raised only fanciful allegations, including claims that he has already been executed and that the defendants have utilized deadly technology to torture him and his mother, he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under § 1915(g) or that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. See 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20236 Document: 00514252114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2017 No. 17-20236 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 WARNING ISSUED. 2

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?