* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has deter mined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-11139

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

JAMES E NOBLES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HOWARD THRASHER; MARY MENOZ, Parole Board;

JAMES A COLLINS; RAY PARRA; LEWIS, Parole,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-1950-G)

January 8, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James E. Nobles, a state prisoner, intended to appeal in forma

pauperis the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action

as frivolous. We find that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1995 (“PLRA”), ena cted April 26, 1996, bars Nobles’s i n forma-2-

pauperis appeal; accordingly, we dismiss his appeal without

prejudice.

Section 1915(g) of the PLRA provides that a prisoner may not

bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. §

1915 “if the pr isoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

a ppeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Since August 27, 1996, well after enactment of the PLRA, the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has

dismissed nine of Nobles’s prisoner actions for frivolousness. S ee

Nobles v. Rodriguez

, No. 3-96-CV-2544-P (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 1996);

Nobles v. Thrasher , No. 3-96-CV-2539-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1996);

Nobles v. Johnso n , No. 3-96-CV-2543-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1996);

Nobles v. Thrasher , No. 3-96-CV-2546-X (N.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 1996);

Nobles v. Rodriguez

, No. 3-96-CV-2545-G (N. D. Tex. Oct. 2, 1996);

Nobles v. Johnson , No. 3-96-CV-2540-R (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1996);

Nobles v. Johnso n , No. 3-96-CV-1948-R (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 1996);

Nobles v. Rodriguez

, No. 3-96-CV-1949-X (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 1996);

Nobles v. Thrasher , No. 3-96-CV-1950-G (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 1996).

The instant appeal is Nobles’s only current appe al from these

dismiss als; indeed, Nobles has waived appeal of the dismissal of-3-

seven of the eight other suits because the time for appeal has

expired with respect to each of t hose cases. S ee F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

4(a)(1) (notice of appeal in civil case to be filed with clerk of

district court within thirty days after date of entry of judgment

or order appealed). As a result, Nobles has accumulated more than

three qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g).

Thus, Nobles cannot pursue the instant app eal i n forma

pauperis ; moreover, he may not while incarcerated proceed in forma

pauperis in any future civil actions or appeals in any federal

court unless he is “under immin ent danger of serious physical

injury.” Nobles may, of course, pursue civil actions in federal

court at his own expense.

Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without prejudice

to Nobles’s pursuing it after payment of the applicable fee(s)

within thirty days of entry of this ord er. We order Nobles to

submit a copy of this order with any future civil complaint or

appeal he submits to any federal court while incarcerated.

APPEAL DISMISSED.