Campbell v. Pace Setter Personnel

229 F. App'x 290

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2007
• Docket: 18-20628
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Keith Campbell, Texas prisoner # 1219880, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Campbell’s IFP motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP, Campbell is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Campbell does not challenge the district court’s analysis, nor does he argue that the district court erred in determining that he failed to present an arguable or non-frivolous issue for appeal. Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Campbell has not shown that the district court’s certification was incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, Campbell’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Campbell’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Campbell has also accumulated a third strike in Campbell v. Bear, No. 06-10196, 229 Fed.Appx. 291, 2007 WL 1493881 (5th Cir.2007), which this court has dismissed as frivolous on this date. Accordingly, because Campbell has accumulated at least three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal brought while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Campbell is further cautioned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions as will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are frivolous.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.