IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10560

Summary Calendar

ROBERT WALTER BONNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM BOSWORTH, District Judge; MARTIN STRAYHAN, Assistant

District Attorney; TOBY ROSS, Director, Johnson County Community

Supervision and Corrections; LARRY SPARKS, Officer, Burleson Police

Department; DON ADAMS, Officer, Burleson Police Department; ADAM KING,

Officer, Burleson Police Department; JAY STUBBS, Officer, Burleson Police

Department; BOB ALFORD, Sheriff, Johnson County, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CV-2150

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Walter Bonner, Texas prisoner # 0327593, seeks leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit,

which raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 23, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10560 Document: 00511674803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2011
No. 11-10560

Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Bonner

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). 

Bonner first argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983

claims regarding a search and seizure and the imposition of conditions of pretrial

release as frivolous because they were filed beyond the applicable statute of

limitations. The district court found, and the record shows, that Bonner knew

the factual basis underlying these claims more than two years before filing this

action. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing these

claims as untimely. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Next, Bonner contends that the district court erred in dismissing his RICO

claims for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The district

court, in dismissing these claims, determined that the conduct alleged (ordering

and collecting fees as conditions of pretrial release) did not qualify as either

extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) or any other “racketeering activity” as

defined by RICO. We find no error in the district court’s determination that the

defendants’ conduct did not rise to the level of extortion. See United States v.

Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090, 1093 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d

732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Bonner has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on

appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly,

Bonner’s motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. 

Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20, the appeal is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Bonner’s complaint as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count

as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Bonner is warned that if he accumulates three

2

Case: 11-10560 Document: 00511674803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2011
No. 11-10560

strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

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

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

3

Case: 11-10560 Document: 00511674803 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/23/2011