Case: 19-20760 Document: 00515714908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 21, 2021
No. 19-20760 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Owen Keith Crawford, Sr.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Child Protective Services; Child Protective Services;
Child Protective Services,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-1789
Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Owen Keith Crawford, Harris County Jail prisoner # 2338322, filed a
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that “Child
Protective Services” (CPS) falsified documents in an effort to remove his
children and that CPS deprived his daughter of medical care. The district
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20760 Document: 00515714908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2021
No. 19-20760
court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied Crawford
leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), certifying that the appeal is not in
good faith. Crawford now moves this court for leave to appeal IFP and for
appointment of counsel.
By moving to appeal IFP, Crawford challenges the certification that
his appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points
arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). Crawford fails to
address the district court’s reasons for certifying that an appeal is not in good
faith. We therefore dismiss the appeal because “it is apparent that an appeal
would be meritless.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; accord Howard, 707 F.2d
at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of Crawford’s § 1983 action for failure
to state a claim and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two
separate strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Previously, the district court for
the Southern District of Texas dismissed a civil IFP action of Crawford’s as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Crawford v. Aramark, No. 4:19-CV-
2470 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2019) (unpublished). This court dismissed the
untimely appeal from that judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Crawford v.
Aramark, No. 20-20170 (5th Cir. July 15, 2020). Consequently, Crawford
now has at least three strikes under section 1915(g). Therefore, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2
Case: 19-20760 Document: 00515714908 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2021
No. 19-20760
Crawford’s IFP motion and motion to appoint counsel are therefore
DENIED. Crawford is hereby PROHIBITED from proceeding IFP, except
as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED.
3