Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20525/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
All Three Wardens of Ellis Unit
Appellee
Assistant Warden Gorsuch
Appellee
Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Appellee
Lieutenant Gustafson
Appellee
Ms. Reed
Appellee
Jeremy Mundine
Appellant
Officer Smith
Appellee
M. Roesler
Appellee
Warden Landis
Appellee
Betty Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20525

JEREMY MUNDINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LIEUTENANT GUSTAFSON,

Defendant-Appellee

DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Debtor-Appellee

ALL THREE WARDENS OF ELLIS UNIT; OFFICER SMITH; MS. REED; 

DOCTOR BETTY WILLIAMS; SENIOR WARDEN M. ROESLER; 

ASSISTANT WARDEN GORSUCH; WARDEN LANDIS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-2169

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

October 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20525 Document: 00513706862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
No. 15-20525

2

Jeremy Mundine, Texas prisoner # 1131861, moves for leave to appeal 

in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mundine does not dispute that he has three strikes but 

argues that he should not be subject to the § 1915(g) bar because he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of his contention, he 

asserts that he was required to perform manual labor in violation of medical 

restrictions, and, as a result, he suffered severe pain, and his pre-existing back 

injury worsened. Mundine acknowledges that he received medical treatment, 

additional medical restrictions, and a new work assignment following his most 

recent injuries, but he insists that he remains in imminent danger.

Mundine’s allegations do not establish that he is in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 

1998). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his 

appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-20525 Document: 00513706862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2016