P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40530 Su m m ar y Cal endar

D AV ID JO E L D AV IS, al so kn ow n as Th u n der C l ou d D avis Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. C H E R Y L KY L E ; K E N E K U Y K E N D A L L ; T I T O O R I G ; U N K N O WN UN IVERS I TYOF TE XAS M EDI CALBRA NCH EM PL OYEE D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 79
B e fo r e J O L LY , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * D a vidJo el D a vis, T ex a s p ri son er #58 2 3 3 2 , h a s f i l ed a m oti on for leav e to p r o c e e dinfo r m ap a u p e r is (IF P ) o n a p p e a l fr o m t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is
m o t i o n f

o r l e av e t o pr o c e e d I FP i n hi s 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c ivilr i ght s a c t i o n. The di st ri ctcourtden i ed D avis l eave to proc eed IF P bo th in h is civi lact i on an d on ap pe al af

t e r c o nc l udi ng t hat D av i s w as ba r r e d f r o m pr o c e e di ng I FP un der t he t h ree- st rikes provi si on i n 28 U
. S .C . § 1 915 ( g)
. Th at provi si on prohibi t s a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40530

2 pr i s o ne rf

r o m pr o c e e di ng IFP if he ha s “ o n t hr e e pr i o ro c c as i o ns dur i ng de t e nt i o n, h a da na c t i o n o ra ppe aldi s m i s s e d a s f r ivo l o us , m ali c i o us , o rf o rfail i ng to state a cl a i m . ” Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3d 3 8 3 , 3 8 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed that D avis ha d earn ed s trikes un der § 1 91 5( g) b ased on t he di s m i s s al , a s f r ivo l o us , o f

D av i s ’ s c l ai m s i n D avi s v. Bry ant , N o. 6: 03- C V

- 564, at1 ( E
. D
. Tex. M ar c h 17, 2004) ; t he di sm i ss al , as f r ivo l o us , of

D av i s ’ s a ppe ali n D av i s v . Bry ant , N o. 04-40471 , at 1- 2 ( 5th C i r. D ec. 17 , 20 04 ) ; and t he di s m i s s al , a s f r ivo l o us , o f

D av i s ’ s c l ai m i n D av i s v. D e laro s s a, N o. 3: 06-C V

- 368 , at 1 (S .D . T e x . F eb. 19, 200 8)
. H ow ever, t h e di st ri ctcourt
e r r e dina tt r ib u tin ga s tr ik e t o D a v is fo rt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is cla im i n D a v is , N o . 3 :0 6 -C V -3 6 8 , a t 1
. D a v is ’ s a p p e a l fr o m th a t d e c is io n , D avi s v. D e la ro s a, N o . 0 8- 41 32 9, i s s t i l lpe ndi ng i n t hi s c o ur t
. A di s m i s s ala s f r ivo l o us o f ac o m pl ai ntm ayno t be c o unt e d as a s t r i ke f o r pur po s e s o f

§ 1 91 5( g) unt i lt he
a p p e lla te p r o c e s s h a s b e e n e x h a u s te do rw a iv e d
. A d e p eg b a, 103 F. 3d at387. W e havenoti dent i f

i ed any ot her ac t i ons and appeal s i n w hi c h D avi s has
accum u l ated a st rik e fo r p u rp o ses of § 1915 ( g)
. A s D avis ha s onl y t w o st rikes
u n der § 1 915 ( g) , the di st ri ctcourterr ed i n deter m i n i n g t h at he w as barred u n der th a t p r o v is io n fr o m p r o c e e d in gIF P b o th in th e d is tr ic tc o u r t a n do n a p p e a l. A c c or di ngl y, w e gr antD avi s l eavet o pr oc ee d I FP on appealand as se ss an ap pel l ate f

i l i n g fee i n accor da n ce w i t h § 1915 (b) ( 1)
. W e d i rectthe di st ri ctcourt t o c al c ul at e D av i s ’ s i ni t i al pa r t i al f i l i ng fe e and t o o r de r c o l l e c t i o n o f t hatf e e a nd t h e rem ai n i n g i n st al l m en t s f rom h i m i n accordan ce w i t h § 191 5(b)
. M oreover, w e v ac at e t he de ni alo f D av i s ’ s m o t i o n t o pr o c e e d I FP i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , a nd
r e m a n dD a v is ’ s ca s e fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . I F P ON AP P EA L GRANT ED ; A P P EL LAT E F I L I NG FE E AS S ES S ED ; DENI AL OF M OTI ON TO P ROCEED I FP I N THE DI S TR I CT COURT VA CA T ED ; C AS E RE M AND ED
.