United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 18, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51396
Conference Calendar
BILLY WAYNE LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAN SMITH, Bell County Sheriff;
FNU PATTERSON, Deputy Sheriff of Bell County;
FNU MCCALL, Deputy Sheriff of Bell County,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-03-CV-117
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy Wayne Lewis, Texas prisoner #1057794, has filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). By moving for IFP,
Lewis is challenging the district court's certification that IFP
status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-51396
-2-
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Lewis argues that he was only allowed to go to the prison
law library for approximately three hours over a seven-month
period and that, during this time, he had three civil matters
pending, including a habeas case, in which he was acting pro se.
He states that he needed access to the prison library to defend
himself against the seizure of his property, to file a grievance
against or fire his court-appointed attorney in his criminal
case, and to see that he had adequate representation.
To establish that he has been denied access to the courts,
Lewis must show actual prejudice in his ability to pursue a legal
claim. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Lewis’s only attempted
allegation of prejudice is with respect to his habeas case.
Assuming, however, as Lewis alleges, that his habeas petition,
filed in July 2002, was only 58 days late, he had more than
enough time after September 10, 2001, when he was last denied
access to the prison law library, to timely file his petition.
Accordingly, his motion for IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 and n.24; 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.
Both the district court’s dismissal of Lewis’s complaint and
this court’s dismissal of this appeal count as “strikes” for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
No. 03-51396
-3-
F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Lewis that once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS
WARNING ISSUED.