### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10560 Summary Calendar

ROBERT WALTER BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. WILLIAM B OSWORTH, District Judge; MARTIN STRAYHAN, Assistant District Attorney; TOBY ROSS, Direc tor, Johnson County Community Supervision a n d Corrections; LARRY SPARKS, Officer, Burleson Police Department; DON ADAMS, Officer, Burleson Police Department ; ADAM KING, Officer, Burleson Police Department; JA Y 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 23, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10560 Document: 00511674803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2011No. 11-10560

Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Bonner is challenging the district court’s certification that his a p p e al is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 199 7). Bonner first argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 claims regarding a search and seizure and the impo sitio n of conditions of pretrial release as frivolous because they were filed beyond th e a p p licable 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 o f p r e t rial release) did not qualify as either extortion un d e r 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 d e f e n d ants’ 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). B o n ner has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue o n appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Bonner’s motion to proceed I F P i s d e n i e d. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. Because h is appeal is frivolous, see Howard , 707 F.2d at 219-20, the appeal is dismissed. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismi s s a l 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: 11/23/2011No. 11-10560

strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or a p p e al f il ed 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 DISMIS S E D ; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

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