Case: 20-20489 Document: 00516003295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 3, 2021
No. 20-20489
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Michael Cardora Roberson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Assistant Warden James E. Blake, Jr., Individually and in
official capacity; Assistant Warden Brandley K. Hutchinson,
Individually and in official capacity; Correction Officer III
Christian A. Dickinson, Individually and in official capacity;
Correction Officer V Elizabeth Z. Allen, Individually and in
official capacity,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-2383
Before Stewart, Haynes and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20489 Document: 00516003295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
No. 20-20489
Michael Cardora Roberson, Texas prisoner # 2167695, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal as a sanctioned
litigant following the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Roberson argues that he faces an
imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the threat does not need to
rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation to satisfy the § 1915(g)
exception. Roberson also alleges that he filed prior grievance forms about
threats from fellow inmates in the past against him and his family. His
speculative and conclusory allegations are insufficient to make the
imminence showing required to avoid application of the three strikes bar
under § 1915(g). See Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, Roberson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED. For the same reasons, his appeal from the district court’s
dismissal of his § 1983 complaint is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).
Roberson is WARNED that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive
filings will invite the imposition of other sanctions, which may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v.
Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
2