IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40053
Conference Calendar
CURTIS ANTONIO DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:95-CV-300
- - - - - - - - - -
February 9, 1999
Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:**
Curtis Antonio Davis, Texas prisoner #45831, appeals from
the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Davis
contends that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the
district court did not rule on his amended complaint; that the
assessment of filing fees by the district court pursuant to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),
*
This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §
46(d).
**
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40053
-2-
should be taken from funds he earns rather than from gift funds;
and that the district court failed to consider some unspecified
substantive claims. Davis requests an opportunity to file
another brief should we determine that we have jurisdiction over
the appeal.
We construe Davis’s contention that we lack jurisdiction as
a request for the dismissal of his appeal. Davis’s contention
lacks a basis in fact; the district court considered his amended
complaint and his original complaint and issued a final judgment.
Davis’s request that the appeal be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction is not well-taken and is DENIED.
Davis’s contention regarding the sources of funds for
payment of filing fees is without a basis in law. The relevant
statute makes no provision regarding the source of funds for the
payment of filing fees by prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),(2).
Davis fails to direct us to any failure by the district
court to consider any of his particular claims. He has failed to
brief any such issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We will
not allow Davis to file a new brief to present any such issue
properly.
Davis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We
previously affirmed the dismissal of portions of two previous
civil rights actions by Davis as frivolous. Davis v. Durant, No.
95-40056 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 1995)(unpublished); Davis v. Napper,
No. 93-4087 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 1994)(unpublished). The district
No. 98-40053
-3-
court’s dismissal of the present case and our dismissal of the
appeal constitute strikes three and four against Davis for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Davis 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).