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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41033

Summary Calendar

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; US ATTORNEY GENERAL, Peter D

Keisler; SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Elections Division; TEXAS

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Gregg Abbott

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CV-637

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Russell Judd, federal prisoner # 11593-051, filed a civil complaint,

on September 19, 2007, against the Federal Election Commission and others

alleging that he was a candidate for President of the United States and that, as

a prisoner, he was not allowed to vote for himself. Judd moved for leave to file

the complaint in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court dismissed the IFP

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41033

2

complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Judd had

three strikes for filing frivolous pleadings and appeals.

Judd appeals the dismissal of his complaint. He argues that his complaint

should have been allowed notwithstanding his prior frivolous pleadings because

he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury from an untreated

hernia and prison gang members. It is true that Section 1915(g) allows for an

exception to the three-strike rule if the prisoner complaint alleges that he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although it may be true that

Judd is now under such a threat both from his medical condition and fellow

prisoners, neither of those threats is related to his complaint. 

Judd also asserts that the dismissal without prejudice was in error

because he subsequently sent in forms to pay the filing fee. Again, this may be

true, but it has nothing to do with the dismissal without prejudice as such a

dismissal would not have prevented him from filing a new suit raising the same

factual allegations and paying the filing fee.

The appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Judd

has a history of vexatious and frivolous litigation in this court and many other

courts. We have issued repeated warnings to Judd, and we have sanctioned him

for prior frivolous actions. These earlier warnings and sanctions have been

insufficient to deter him from continuing to file frivolous pleadings.

Accordingly, Judd is ORDERED to pay a sanction in the amount of $500

to the clerk of this court. Even after satisfaction of all sanction orders, Judd may

not file any civil action in a district court of this circuit, or any pleading or notice

of appeal with this court, without first obtaining leave of the court in which he

seeks to file such action, pleading, or notice. When seeking leave of court, Judd

must certify that the claim he wishes to present is a new one that has never

before either been raised and disposed of on the merits or remains pending in
No. 07-41033

3

any federal court. Upon failure thus to certify or upon false certification, Judd

may be found in contempt of court and punished accordingly. 

Judd is CAUTIONED that filing any frivolous or repetitive action, in this

court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, will subject him to

additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED;

SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.