Case Name: Jeremy MUNDINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lieutenant GUSTAFSON, Defendant-Appellee Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Debtor-Appellee. All Three Wardens of Ellis Unit; Officer Smith; Ms. Reed; Doctor Betty Williams; Senior Warden M. Roesler; Assistant Warden Gorsuch; Warden Landis, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 669 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 15-20525
Parties: Jeremy MUNDINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lieutenant GUSTAFSON, Defendant-Appellee Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Debtor-Appellee All Three Wardens of Ellis Unit; Officer Smith; Ms. Reed; Doctor Betty Williams; Senior Warden M. Roesler; Assistant Warden Gorsuch; Warden Landis, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Jeremy MUNDINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lieutenant GUSTAFSON, Defendant-Appellee Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Debtor-Appellee All Three Wardens of Ellis Unit; Officer Smith; Ms. Reed; Doctor Betty Williams; Senior Warden M. Roesler; Assistant Warden Gorsuch; Warden Landis, Defendants-Appellees
No. 15-20525
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/05/2016
Jeremy Mundine, Huntsville, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Mundine, Texas prisoner # 1131861, moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mundine does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that he should not be subject to the § 1915(g) bar becausé he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. In support of his contention, he asserts that he was required to perform .manual labor in violation of medical restrictions, and, as a result, he suffered severe pain, and his pre-existing back injury worsened. Mundine acknowledges that he received medical treatment, additional medical restrictions, and a new work assignment following his most recent injuries, but he insists that he remains in imminent danger.
Mundine's allegations do not establish that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Baños v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED.
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.