Mask v. Jones, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10032
Conference Calendar
JOEL MASK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NANCY JONES, Caseworker, Texas Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES;
LISA KAY CARNES, Parole Officer, Board of Pardon and Parole;
DANIEL R. WHELLER, Attorney at Law, Chappel and Lanehart,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:99-CV-330-C
--------------------
June 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joel Mask, Lubbock County Jail # 059445, TDCJ-ID # 467379,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court found
that Mask had three prior civil rights cases dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
Mask argues that he was not notified that he had been
sanctioned under the three strikes rule prior to filing his claim

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-10032
-2-
in forma pauperis. He contends that he is able to pay the filing
fee for his claim as he is entitled to do.
Mask was put on notice in this court’s opinion in Mask v.
Lampert, No. 97-11283 (5th Cir. Aug. 18. 1998) (unpublished) that
he was subject to the three strikes provision of § 1915(g) and
that he may no longer proceed IFP unless he was under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Mask does not challenge the
district court’s finding that his allegations did not meet this
criteria. Further, his contention that he is able to pay the
filing fee and would have done so if he had been put on notice
that § 1915(g) would be applied, is in direct contradiction to
his statement in his motion to proceed IFP, made under penalty of
perjury, that he was unable to prepay the filing fee.
Mask’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court sanctioned Mask monetarily in the amount of
$50.00 for failing to disclose his prior lawsuits. We sanction
him further for making the false statement in his IFP application
that he could not pay, when he now asserts that he could. We
note that Mask was able to pay the $105.00 for this appeal. Mask
is hereby ORDERED to pay a sanction of $150.00, the amount he
represents that he could have paid to file this action. His
motions are DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --