Borgos v. Doe
Order Accepting 10 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff's claims against the BOP and the Defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE for want of jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff's Bivens claims against the Defendants in their individual capacity are summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.This dismissal will count as a strike or prior occasion. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 7/7/2017) (epm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DANNY BORGOS, #65484-054,
JENNIFER LAPERTON, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 3:16-CV-2936-N-BK
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation
in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings,
conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the BOP and the
Defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of
jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s Bivens claims against the Defendants in their individual capacity
are summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
This dismissal will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly known as the “three-strikes” provision, provides: “[i]n no
event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
under this section, 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
The Court prospectively CERTIFIES that any appeal of this action would not be taken
in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this
certification, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir.
1997). Based on the Findings and Recommendation, the Court finds that any appeal of this
action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).2 In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may
challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202; FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).
SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.”
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order. A timely notice
of appeal must be filed even if the district court certifies an appeal as not taken in good faith.
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?