IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40884
Summary Calendar
ROY JON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH K. PRICE, Warden, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:96-CV-820
- - - - - - - - - -
March 18, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy Jon, a Texas prisoner (# 626840), appeals the district
court’s dismissal as frivolous of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged that the
defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances, denied him
adequate medical care, placed him on "loss of privileges" status in
violation of due process, and improperly changed his work
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 97-40884
- 2 -
classification.
Jon's request to file an amended brief is DENIED. Jon's
supplemental amended brief should not have been filed as it is not
authorized under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or the
rules of this court. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a), (c), (j). It is
STRICKEN.
Jon argues that the magistrate judge improperly denied leave
to file a second amended complaint and that the district court
abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. We have reviewed the
record and Jon's allegations, and we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jon’s § 1983
action as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Because Jon’s arguments of error are wholly without merit,
this appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
On at least three occasions, besides this frivolous appeal,
Jon has brought an action or appeal in a United States court that
was dismissed as frivolous; therefore, Jon is BARRED from
proceeding IFP under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, Jon may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal
filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); MOTION FOR LEAVE
No. 97-40884
- 3 -
TO AMEND THE INITIAL BRIEF DENIED; AMENDED BRIEF STRICKEN; APPEAL
DISMISSED.