Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dustin Allen Biggerstaff, a Texas prisoner held at the Ector County Detention Center, sued Sheriff Mike Griffis and Sergeant FNU Adeluola under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they violated his civil rights by failing to provide a bottom bunk despite his medical need for that accommodation.
The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice because Biggerstaff had not exhausted his administrative remedies. After the district court determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, Biggerstaff asked the Fifth Circuit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and also moved for appointment of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied Biggerstaff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal as frivolous. At this stage, the court’s inquiry was limited to whether the appeal presented a legal point arguable on its merits. Biggerstaff made no substantive attempt to address the district court’s reason for dismissal—failure to exhaust administrative remedies—and therefore identified no nonfrivolous appellate issue.
The court also denied Biggerstaff’s motion for appointment of counsel. It held that the frivolous-appeal dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Biggerstaff already had three prior strikes and was subject to a § 1915(g) pleading bar, the court reiterated that he may not proceed in forma pauperis in a federal civil action or appeal while incarcerated or detained unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status on appeal must identify a legal issue arguable on its merits.
- Failing to address the district court’s actual ground for dismissal can leave an appeal without any nonfrivolous issue.
- A frivolous appellate dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g), and the Fifth Circuit warned that further frivolous, repetitive, or abusive filings could produce additional sanctions.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appellant must directly confront the dispositive reasoning below; restating the underlying civil-rights complaint is not enough to establish a good-faith appeal. For incarcerated litigants, that failure can have consequences beyond dismissal because a frivolous appeal may add a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The opinion also illustrates the practical effect of the three-strikes rule: once the bar applies, an incarcerated plaintiff generally cannot pursue federal civil litigation without prepaying filing fees unless the imminent-danger exception is satisfied.