United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10897
Summary Calendar
I. STEPHAN BLOCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SIMEON T. LAKE, III, U.S. District Judge; HARRELL
WATTS, National Appeal Administrator; RONALD G.
THOMPSON, Regional Director of Bureau of Prisons;
MICHAEL D. HOOD, Regional Counsel for Bureau of Prisons,
M. MORRISON, Warden; R. A. SMITH, Unit Manager at Beaumont
Federal Correctional Institution Low,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-2965-G
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
I. Stephan Bloch, federal prisoner # 66982-079, seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s
certification that his appeal from the dismissal of his Bivens1
action is taken in bad faith. Bloch is challenging the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
No. 04-10897
-2-
court’s certification. Bloch’s IFP motion is denied. See Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).
Bloch alleges that Judge Lake and the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) defendants violated his due process rights by forcing him
to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program
(IFRP). He argues that the IFRP payment plan constituted an
impermissible delegation of Article III power to a non-judicial
entity. Because the sentencing court set the amount of
restitution and ordered that the restitution was due immediately,
there was no unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority.
See McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 886 (7th Cir. 1999); Montana-
Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1998).
Bloch also argues that the district court erroneously
concluded that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
as to defendants Watts, Thompson, Morrison, and Smith. The
record shows that Bloch failed to name those defendants in
grievance proceedings. Accordingly, the district court correctly
determined that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
as to those defendants. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Finally, Bloch argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his claims against Judge Lake. Bloch’s claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief were properly dismissed as
frivolous. See McGhee, 166 F.3d at 886; Montana-Figueroa, 162
F.3d at 550. Bloch has demonstrated no error in the district
court’s conclusion that Judge Lake is absolutely immune from a
No. 04-10897
-3-
claim for monetary damages in this case. See Mireles v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
The instant appeal is frivolous and is dismissed as such.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal of Bloch’s complaint for failure to state a claim count
as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Adepegba
v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Bloch previously
acquired a strike when his appeal was dismissed in Bloch v. Hood,
No. 02-41565 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2003) (unpublished), and he was
cautioned in that opinion that the accumulation of three strikes
would result in the imposition of a bar under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Because Bloch has now accumulated three strikes under
§ 1915(g), he is BARRED from proceeding 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. § 1915(g).
IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED.