United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50410

Summary Calendar

Jammie L. Jones, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Texas Department of Child Protective Services, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-307

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jammie L. Jones, while detained in the Harris County Jail

(# 01893875), filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, alleging

that the Texas Department of Child Protective Services violated his 

constitutional rights by placing his biological child in the custody of a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
No. 20-50410

2

guardian without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard and by 

failing to follow its own rules and regulations before terminating his parental 

rights. The district court determined that Jones’s complaint was barred by 

the statute of limitations, dismissed the complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, and denied Jones leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal based on a finding that his appeal was not taken in 

good faith. 

Jones now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for 

the appointment of counsel. By seeking leave to proceed IFP, Jones 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). 

To obtain IFP status, Jones must demonstrate financial eligibility and 

a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th 

Cir. 1982). Although Jones has demonstrated his financial eligibility, see id., 

he has not shown a nonfrivolous appellate issue concerning the district 

court’s dismissal of his complaint, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th 

Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal and 

DISMISS Jones’s appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Jones’s motion for the appointment of counsel is likewise 

DENIED. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 

(5th Cir. 1991). Our dismissal and the district court’s dismissal count as 

strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 

575 U.S. 532, 534-40 (2015). Jones has previously accumulated two strikes. 

See Jones v. Gonzales, 831 F. App’x 146, 147 (5th Cir. 2020). Jones is thus 

BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
No. 20-50410

3

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

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2021