Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20144/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20144

Summary Calendar

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015
No. 14-20144

2

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.

 Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2015