IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40931
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM EARL CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LELAND HEUSZEL, Warden; MELTON BROCK, Warden;
CHARLES FRIZZEL, Classification Manager;
JIMMY ALFRED, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:96-CV-148
- - - - - - - - - -
August 20, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Earl Cunningham, Texas prisoner #643591, appeals
from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous.
Cunningham’s motion to make a personal appearance on appeal is
construed as a request for oral argument; all three of his
requests for oral argument are DENIED. Cunningham contends that
the defendants failed to protect him from an attack by inmate
John Kirven; that they conspired against him; and that they
placed him in administrative segregation against his will.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-40931
-2-
Cunningham does not brief his contentions regarding
conspiracy and placement in administrative segregation beyond
mentioning them. He has failed to brief those issues for appeal.
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deupty Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Regarding Cunningham’s contention that the defendants failed
to protect him from Kirven, we have reviewed the file and
Kirven’s brief and we have found no nonfrivolous issues.
Accordingly, we dismiss Cunningham’s appeal for essentially the
same reasons relied upon by the district court. Cunningham v.
Heuszel, No. 9:96-CV-148 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 1997).
Cunningham’s appeal is without arguable merit and is
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). We previously dismissed two appeals by Cunningham as
frivolous, following the dismissal of two of his complaints as
frivolous. Cunningham v. Woods, No. 97-10377 (5th Cir. Oct. 31,
1997)(unpublished); Cunningham v. de la Vaga, No. 97-40166 (Oct.
31, 1997)(unpublished). The district court’s dismissal of the
present case and our dismissal of the appeal constitute strikes
five and six against Cunningham for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996). Because Cunningham has more than three strikes, he may
not bring a civil action or appeal as a prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).