Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10187/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian A. Amonett
Appellee
Gary Johnson
Appellee
Robert D. Lockwood
Appellant
Robert M. Lopez
Appellee
Joe Tovar
Appellee
Robert Treon
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10187

ROBERT D. LOCKWOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MR. GARY JOHNSON, Tex. TDCJ-ID Prison Operations Director, also known 

as Gary Schafer, also known as NFN Schandeling; SENIOR WARDEN 

ADRIAN A. AMONETT, Tex. TDCJ-ID Prison, John Montford Mental Health 

Unit; JOE TOVAR, Major, Tex. TDCJ-ID Prison John Montford Mental Health 

Unit; ROBERT TREON, Regional Grievance Director/Coordinator/

Investigator - Tex. TDCJ-ID Prisons; ROBERT M. LOPEZ, Assistant and 

Security Personnel Gate Operations Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CV-286

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Robert D. Lockwood, Texas prisoner # 808461, moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Lockwood also filed notices of appeal from the denial 

* 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

March 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10187 Document: 00515327526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020
No. 19-10187

2

of various interlocutory orders prior to the issuance of the final appealable 

order. The district court dismissed Lockwood’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and denied Lockwood leave to proceed 

IFP, certifying that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), the appeal is not taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP, Lockwood is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith 

“is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits 

(and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Lockwood has not addressed the reasons for the district court’s 

certification decision; regardless, he has not shown that his appeal involves an 

arguable legal issue and is thus taken in good faith. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 

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

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH 

CIR. R. 42.2.

Both this court’s dismissal and the district court’s dismissal as frivolous 

count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). Additionally, at the time he filed the 

instant motion, Lockwood had accrued at least one other strike. Lockwood v. 

Armstrong, No. 6:17-CV-351 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2018) (order dismissing 

complaint with prejudice as frivolous). Because Lockwood has accumulated at 

least three strikes under § 1915(g), he is now BARRED from proceeding IFP in 

any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). He is WARNED that future frivolous, 

repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of additional 

Case: 19-10187 Document: 00515327526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020
No. 19-10187

3

sanctions. He should review any pending appeals and actions and move to 

dismiss any that are frivolous.

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED; § 1915(g) BAR 

IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 19-10187 Document: 00515327526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2020