Court Opinion

ID: 9369055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 19:00:59.532101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.620732
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40693    Document: 00516637147        Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/07/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                               ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                No. 22-40693
                                                                       FILED
                                                                 February 7, 2023
                              Summary Calendar
                              ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                       Clerk
   Jalil Rajaii Floyd,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                     versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division; Bryan Collier, Executive Director,
   Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual and official capacities;
   Nicole Sandifer, Individual and official capacities; Vernon
   Mitchell, Individual and official capacities; K. Harbin, Individual and
   official capacities; Nina Tanner, Individual and official capacities;
   Timothy Fitzpatrick, Chief of Classification; Individual and
   official capacities; Lannette Linthicum, Director UTMB
   Intake Mental Health; Individual and official capacities;
   John Doe, (Poppoola); Jane Doe, (Eke),

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 6:22-CV-294
                 ______________________________
Case: 22-40693         Document: 00516637147             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                          No. 22-40693

   Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jalil Rajaii Floyd, Texas prisoner # 572644, moves for leave to appeal
   in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
   lawsuit as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Floyd asserts that Powledge
   Unit officials failed to protect him from violent assault, in violation of his
   Eighth Amendment rights, and he urges that he is under imminent danger of
   serious physical injury as he continues to be subject to unsafe conditions and
   possible violence due to the Powledge Unit’s ongoing policies of failing to
   separate violent prisoners from elderly, nonviolent, disabled prisoners and
   failing to secure kitchen scrap metals.
          As the district court determined, Floyd’s allegations of past harm are
   insufficient to show imminent danger within the meaning of § 1915(g). See
   Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998). His allegations of
   possible future violence are conclusional and speculative and fail to
   demonstrate the existence of a specific threat or a genuine impending
   emergency. They therefore fail to allege that he faced imminent danger of
   serious physical injury at the time that he filed his complaint, appeal, or IFP
   motion. See id.
          Floyd has not shown that he is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal. See
   § 1915(g). He has also not shown that the district court erred by dismissing
   the complaint based on the three-strikes bar. See Baños, 144 F.3d at 885.
          Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24
   (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Floyd’s motion for the appointment of
   counsel is similarly DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212
   (5th Cir. 1982).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2