Case Name: Charles MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. ZELLER, Senior Warden; Lloyd Massey, Assistant Over Death Row; Timothy Hindsman, Security Lieutenant; Michael Hinote, Security Sargent; Sophia Miller, CO IV; Beverly Brown, CO IV; Gail Shelton, CO IV; Brenda Farr, Vocational Nurse; Johnny Thompson, Security Sargent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 06-40075
Parties: Charles MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. ZELLER, Senior Warden; Lloyd Massey, Assistant Over Death Row; Timothy Hindsman, Security Lieutenant; Michael Hinote, Security Sargent; Sophia Miller, CO IV; Beverly Brown, CO IV; Gail Shelton, CO IV; Brenda Farr, Vocational Nurse; Johnny Thompson, Security Sargent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
Charles MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. ZELLER, Senior Warden; Lloyd Massey, Assistant Over Death Row; Timothy Hindsman, Security Lieutenant; Michael Hinote, Security Sargent; Sophia Miller, CO IV; Beverly Brown, CO IV; Gail Shelton, CO IV; Brenda Farr, Vocational Nurse; Johnny Thompson, Security Sargent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-40075
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Charles Moore, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Stiles Unit, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Moore, Texas state prisoner #401009, appeals the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as time-barred. Moore argues that his action should not have been dismissed summarily because his § 1983 claims have merit and that the limitations period should have been equitably tolled by the pendency of his prior unsuccessful state lawsuits.
Because the Texas statute of limitations is borrowed in § 1983 cases, this court also looks to Texas's equitable tolling principles. See Rotella v. Pederson, 144 F.3d 892, 897 (5th Cir.1998). Texas permits the tolling of a statute of limitations when a plaintiffs legal remedies are precluded by the pendency of other legal proceedings. See Holmes v. Texas A & M Univ., 145 F.3d 681, 684-85 (5th Cir.1998). However, the pendency of Moore's state lawsuits do not entitle him to equitable tolling because they sought a remedy that he need not have pursued. Cf. id. at 685.
Because Moore has not demonstrated any justification for equitable tolling or for any other relief, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
The district court's dismissal of Moore's complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Moore is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis 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).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.