IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30737
Summary Calendar
BEN ALAN SNIPES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES COOK; MILSTEAD, Mr.; EARL BREAUX,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-235
--------------------
September 3, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ben Alan Snipes, currently incarcerated in Florida, appeals
the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted of his pro se and in forma
pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint. Snipes’ motion for a stay
of this appeal and/or consolidation of this appeal with No. 98-
CV-0642 and his motion for leave to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion for consolidation are DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-30737
-2-
Snipes alleged that while he was incarcerated in the
Ouachita Correctional Center in Louisiana, the defendants denied
him access to the court, denied him access to the administrative
grievance procedure, and retaliated against him. Snipes also
listed the following alleged violations of his civil rights:
destruction of mail; deliberate indifference to investigate;
violation of church and state; reckless endangerment due to the
lack of fire extinguishers; reckless endangerment due to the lack
of 24-hour floor personnel in living and recreational areas;
denial of unmonitored phones for calls to attorneys; lack of
notice of the monitoring of phone calls; lack of notice of
grievance and disciplinary procedures; denial of “legal
addresses”; and discrimination and retaliation by allowing some
inmates to have legal books from home.
Snipes does not address the district court’s reasons for
dismissing his complaint, and thus, he has abandoned the only
issue for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Snipes does not
reiterate his retaliation claim in this court. Accordingly, he
has abandoned it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993)(arguments must be briefed to be preserved).
Snipes’ appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and
is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
This is not the first complaint or appeal filed by Snipes
that has been dismissed as frivolous. A prisoner may not
bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action or proceeding under this
No. 98-30737
-3-
section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Including the district court’s dismissal of
Snipes’ complaint and the dismissal of this appeal, Snipes has
four "strikes." See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 386-88
(5th Cir. 1996).
Our dismissal as frivolous of Snipes’ appeal in Snipes v.
Ward, No. 98-30736 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 1999), and the district
court’s dismissal as frivolous of Snipes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint in that case count as Snipes’ first and second strikes.
The district court’s dismissal of Snipes’ complaint as frivolous
in the instant case is Snipes’ third strike. See Snipes v. Cook,
No. 98-CV-235 (W.D. La. July 13, 1998). This court’s dismissal
of the instant appeal is the fourth strike.
Except for cases involving an imminent danger of serious
physical injury, Snipes is BARRED under § 1915(g) from proceeding
further under § 1915.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
ORDERED; MOTIONS DENIED.