IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50008

Summary Calendar

ERIC FLORES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; NORTHERN ATLANTIC

EXTRADITION SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CV-256

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Flores, formerly detained in the El Paso County Jail Annex,

challenges the district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP),

civil rights complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Section

1915(e)(2)(B) provides that a district court shall dismiss an IFP complaint, at

any time, if the district court determines that the action is frivolous. See

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact and is factually

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 27, 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: 11-50008 Document: 00511552702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2011
No. 11-50008

frivolous when the allegations are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional or when

they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).

In the district court, Flores alleged that:

[C]ertain executive employees of the federal government . . . are

using advanced technology with a direct signal to the satellite in

outer space that has the capability of calculating a genetic code to

inflict upon the petitioner and his immediate relatives different

types of genetic virus[es] that cause severe pain which was

equivalent in intensity to organ failure, brain damage, impairment

of body function, and death. 

We observe that Flores’s claims are similar to those raised in a prior action, also

dismissed as frivolous, and that we affirmed that prior dismissal as frivolous. 

See Flores v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 378 F. App’x 473 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court determined that Flores’s claims were “fanciful, fantastic,

delusional, and, therefore, baseless” or “irrational and ‘wholly incredible.’” 

Flores repeats his wholly incredible allegations in his brief to this court. Flores’s

allegations lack an arguable basis in fact. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. The

district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Flores’s

complaint as frivolous. See id.

Flores’s appeal has no arguable merit, is frivolous, and is dismissed. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Because Flores was incarcerated at the time that he filed the

instant complaint, the district court’s dismissal of Flores’s action as frivolous

counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Should Flores accumulate three strikes, he will not

be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated

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

physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Flores is further cautioned that the filing of further frivolous appeals will

result in sanctions. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions,

2

Case: 11-50008 Document: 00511552702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2011
No. 11-50008

and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject

to this court’s jurisdiction. Flores is directed to review any other appeals that

may be pending in this court and to withdraw any appeal that is frivolous.

All pending motions are denied.

APPEALDISMISSEDASFRIVOLOUS;MOTIONS DENIED;SANCTION

WARNINGS ISSUED.

3

Case: 11-50008 Document: 00511552702 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2011