Case Name: Vernon KING, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-05
Citations: 611 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 15-20100
Parties: Vernon KING, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 232–232

Head Matter:
Vernon KING, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-20100.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 2015.
Vernon King, Jr., Huntsville, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vernon King, Jr., Texas prisoner # 590316, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP in a civil action or in an appeal of a judgment in a civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, 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. Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir.1998). King has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under § 1915(g) or that his appeal of the district court's judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See id.; Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). King's motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.
The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.