Singleton v. Peters, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40254
Conference Calendar
NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PETERS, Mr.; POLLIE, Ms.; CHUC DINH; EUCH IWUANYANWU;
CECILIA OKOYE; GARCIA, Ms.; THAHAN, Lieutenant;
D. WILLIAMS; JOSA HINO; G. WINGATE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-03-CV-100
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nathaniel Singleton, Texas prisoner # 716045, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
The district court dismissed Singleton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution.
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The district court imposed a sanction
barring Singleton for life from filing any lawsuit or civil
action without obtaining prior permission from a judge in this
Circuit. Singleton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 04-40254
-2-
is construed as a challenge to the district court’s certification
decision that Singleton’s appeal from the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint was not taken in good faith.
See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Singleton argues that the district court erred in denying
him IFP status because he has paid the requisite filing fees in
some of his former lawsuits and that the district court illegally
retained these fees in violation of a court order. Singleton
does not specifically identify which court order he is referring
to or any relevant rule that the district court has purportedly
violated. His argument therefore lacks merit.
Singleton also argues that he has remitted the appropriate
filing fees and complied with the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in four of his prior cases.
Singleton does not identify these cases nor does he offer any
explanation with respect to the district court’s determination
that he has filed 33 remaining lawsuits only to dismiss them 73%
of the time due to his failure or refusal to comply with filing
fees or PLRA requirements. Singleton has not briefed issues
related to these cases and therefore has abandoned these issues
on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, Singleton’s claims are meritless and his
appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 04-40254
-3-
Singleton has filed at least 14 lawsuits in the Southern
District of Texas in 2002 and 23 lawsuits in the Southern
District of Texas in 2003, with the majority resulting in
voluntary or involuntary dismissals for failure to pay the
requisite filing fees or to comply with the requirements of the
PLRA. In Singleton v. Sanders, No. 04-40119 (5th Cir. June 22,
2004) (unpublished), this court dismissed an appeal by Singleton
and issued a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) sanctions warning. With this
court’s dismissal of the instant appeal, Singleton has now
accumulated three “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
Singleton is now barred from proceeding IFP 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Although we recognize that the district court is faced with
Singleton’s litigious filings, we nevertheless have some concern
over the extraordinary breadth of the district court’s sanction
order. Accordingly, we MODIFY the sanction order of the district
court to reflect that, in addition to obtaining permission from a
judge of the Circuit prior to filing even a paid civil lawsuit,
Singleton must demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury in accordance with

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 04-40254
-4-
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This modification does not extend to
Singleton’s ability to file habeas corpus actions in accordance
with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Singleton is ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $255,
payable to the Clerk of this Court. See 5TH CIR. R. 3. The Clerk
of this Court and the clerks of all federal district courts
within this Circuit are directed to refuse to file any pro se
civil complaint or appeal by Singleton unless Singleton submits
proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If Singleton attempts to
file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in
this court without such proof, the clerk will docket them for
administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not
show proof that the sanction has been paid will neither be
addressed or acknowledged.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
MODIFIED; $255 MONETARY SANCTION IMPOSED.

-- 4 of 4 --