Case Name: Robert James FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-24
Citations: 610 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 14-20144
Parties: Robert James FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
Robert James FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-20144
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 24, 2015.
Robert James Fox, pro se.
Celamaine Cunniff, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Fox appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, liberally construed, as barred by the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He asserts that he has no knowledge of any strikes.
In 2001, the Northern District of Texas concluded that Fox had a pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits and sanctioned Fox by prohibiting him from filing any future litigation in the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining permission. In dismissing the instant case, the district court relied on that earlier district court's order to determine that the instant complaint was barred under § 1915(g). However, this 2001 order is not a strike under § 1915(g), and there is no record of any other cases where Fox, "while incarcerated or detained in any facility," brought "an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it [was] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." § 1915(g).
Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Fox had three strikes at the time he filed the instant lawsuit and in concluding that Fox was barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.