IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11037

Summary Calendar

JAMES ANTHONY WARREN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

THE ESTATE OF HENRYWADE, Dallas County District Attorney; BILL HILL,

Dallas County District Attorney; FAITH SIMMONS, Dallas County District

Attorney; CRAIG WATKINS, Dallas County District Attorney; LARISSA T.

ROEDER, Dallas County Asst. District Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-938

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Anthony Warren, Texas prisoner # 1334008, moves for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A, reasoning that his claims

were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court also

denied Warren’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that this appeal

was not taken in good faith.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 31, 2013

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: 12-11037 Document: 00512326692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2013
No. 12-11037

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

certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Warren’s bare assertions that Heck does not apply to his case are insufficient to

show that the district court erred in certifying that his appeal was not taken in

good faith. See id.; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). His

remaining assertions do not concern Heck and likewise do not demonstrate a

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and

is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at

219-20; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Warren filed a prior civil suit that was dismissed by the district court

under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, a decision from which he did not

appeal. Warren v. Hunt Cnty. Criminal Justice Ctr., No. 3:97-CV-705-R (N.D.

Tex. Apr. 30, 1997). That prior dismissal counts as one strike under § 1915(g). 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Based on the

district court’s dismissal of his instant complaint and our dismissal of this

appeal as frivolous, Warren has accumulated two additional strikes, for a total

of at least three strikes under § 1915(g). See id. at 388. Thus, Warren 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).

In addition, we warn Warren that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise

abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal,

monetary sanctions, and/or restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this

court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Warren is further warned

that he should review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any

that are frivolous.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL

DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

2

 Case: 12-11037 Document: 00512326692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2013