Case: 15-40572 Document: 00513353583 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-40572 FILED
January 22, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
JUAN JOSE PEREZ, III, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
LARRY G. SPENCE, Sheriff of Willacy County, his individual capacity; LUPE
OLIVAREZ, Sergeant, his individual capacity; N/UNKNOWN COY, Sergeant,
his individual capacity; IRMA AMBRIZ, Nurse, her individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CV-230
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Jose Perez, III, now Texas prisoner # 1717846, moves this court to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s grant
of summary judgment and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Perez
filed a civil rights complaint against employees of the Willacy County Jail
alleging that they violated his rights while he was a pretrial detainee. Perez’s
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-40572 Document: 00513353583 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2016
No. 15-40572
motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Without any citation to the record and without providing any factual
background, Perez makes conclusory assertions that the district court erred in
failing to appoint counsel and an investigator to assist with his complaint. He
does not address the district court’s reasons for granting summary judgment
on the substance of his claims against the defendants that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, they violated provisions
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, they retaliated against him, and they
failed to train officials to handle medical needs of pretrial detainees.
Perez has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion
for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. This court’s dismissal of these
appeals as frivolous count as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Perez is
cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be
able to proceed 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 § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
2