Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40632/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lanette Linthicum
Appellee
James Bell McCoy
Appellant
Owen Murray
Appellee
Pam Pace
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40632

JAMES BELL MCCOY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OWEN MURRAY; LANETTE LINTHICUM, Director, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice Medical Services; PAM PACE, Practice Manager, Michael 

Unit,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CV-228

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Bell McCoy, Texas prisoner # 1299701, moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP in an appeal of a judgment in 

a civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while 

* 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

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40632 Document: 00512999008 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-40632

incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or 

malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

§ 1915(g). 

McCoy does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the 

§ 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent danger of a 

serious physical injury. In support of this contention, he states that he is in 

pain and has difficulty sleeping because of delays in receiving medication, and 

that there is a likelihood of unnecessary delay in receiving future medication 

from prison officials. McCoy has failed to demonstrate that he was under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he filed his 

complaint in the district court, proceeded with his appeal, or moved to proceed 

IFP. See id.; Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998); Arvie v. 

Tanner, 518 F. App’x 304, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2013).

McCoy’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). McCoy’s motion to expedite the ruling on his motion 

for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.

2

Case: 14-40632 Document: 00512999008 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015