United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-40158 Clerk
Conference Calendar
ANTHONY DIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT; DAVID FORREST; FRANSIC OERTHER, Director
of Willacy Medical Department; NO FIRST NAME RODRIGUEZ,
No First Name Given; GARY JOHNSON; E. BRAVO; R. OROZCO;
JOSEPH HOLLOMAN; RICKY POOL; FRANK HOKE; VICKY BARROW;
JOHN DOE DELEON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-MC-28
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Dixon, Texas prisoner # 849656, appeals from the
denial of his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to
adduce evidence that he had exhausted his administrative
remedies. We find no abuse of discretion. See In re Liljeberg
Enters., 304 F.3d 410, 453 n.113 (5th Cir. 2002).
Insofar as Dixon contends that he has supplied the necessary
documentation of exhaustion to both the Brownsville and Houston
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-40158
-2-
Divisions of the Southern District of Texas, neither court’s
docket supports that contention. Moreover, not only has Dixon
failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of his
motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, he has never provided
a more definite statement as requested by the district court. In
light of the foregoing, it cannot be said that he suffered an
injustice when the district court refused to reopen his case.
See In re Liljeberg Enters., 304 F.3d at 453 n.113. The issue
whether Dixon exhausted his administrative remedies is not before
us; Dixon dismissed his appeal to this court from the judgment
dismissing his complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. See Dixon v. Scott, No. 02-40800 (5th Cir. July 9,
2002) (unpublished).
Dixon’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore
dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Dixon is informed that
the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), and he is cautioned that once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis
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).
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.