Case Name: Lawrence Edward THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Adrian GARCIA; Unnamed Other Employees of Harris County Sheriffs Office; Aramark Maintenance, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-13
Citations: 593 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 14-20505
Parties: Lawrence Edward THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Adrian GARCIA; Unnamed Other Employees of Harris County Sheriffs Office; Aramark Maintenance, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
Lawrence Edward THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Adrian GARCIA; Unnamed Other Employees of Harris County Sheriffs Office; Aramark Maintenance, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-20505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2015.
Lawrence Edward Thompson, Houston, TX, pro se.
Lisa Rice Hulsey, Assistant County Attorney, Mary E. Baker, County Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Edward Thompson, Texas prisoner # 155240, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP in a civil action or in an appeal of a judgment in a civil action if he has, on three or more occasions during his incarceration, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thompson has failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he sought to file his complaint in the district court, proceed with his appeal, or move to proceed IFP. See § 1915(g); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998). Thompson's motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.