Case: 17-20103 Document: 00514225785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-20103 FILED
November 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
ERIC FLORES,
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
R. MOORE, Senior Warden; M. ROESLER, Senior Warden; J. PERALTA,
Senior Warden,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-3385
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, filed a motion
for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Flores has raised
only fanciful allegations, including claims that he has already been executed
and that the defendants have utilized deadly technology to torture him and his
mother, so he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-20103 Document: 00514225785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2017
No. 17-20103
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous
issue. See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley,
689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is
denied.
The facts surrounding Flores’s IFP request are inextricably intertwined
with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24
(5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We have previously warned Flores that he
would face sanctions, including monetary ones, if he continued to file frivolous
or repetitive pleadings. We have also directed him to review all pending
matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise
abusive. See Flores v. Director, TDCJ, No. 16-20406 (5th Cir. May 30, 2017);
Flores v. TDCJ, No. 16-20459 (5th Cir. May 30, 2017); Flores v. Moore, No. 16-
11033 (5th Cir. May 30, 2017); Flores v. Moore, No. 16-20587 (5th Cir. June 26,
2017). Because Flores has ignored our warnings, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that a SANCTION IS IMPOSED. Flores is ORDERED to remit a monetary
sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. Flores is also
BARRED from filing any pleading in this court or in any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction until that sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains
leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. Flores is further
CAUTIONED that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any
court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions.
He is again DIRECTED to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any
that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION
IMPOSED.
2