Robert Fox v. William Stephens, Director, No. 14-20144 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-20144 Summary Calendar July 24, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERT JAMES FOX, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-1880 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert James Fox appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, liberally construed, as barred by the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He asserts that he has no knowledge of any strikes. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 No. 14-20144 In 2001, the Northern District of Texas concluded that Fox had a pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits and sanctioned Fox by prohibiting him from filing any future litigation in the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining permission. In dismissing the instant case, the district court relied on that earlier district court’s order to determine that the instant complaint was barred under § 1915(g). However, this 2001 order is not a strike under § 1915(g), and there is no record of any other cases where Fox, “while incarcerated or detained in any facility,” brought “an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it [was] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” § 1915(g). Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Fox had three strikes at the time he filed the instant lawsuit and in concluding that Fox was barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
