IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51179
Conference Calendar
JAMES HENRY BANKHEAD, also known as
H. Bankhead, also known as James X,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES HEYENS, Nurse,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-97-CV-690
- - - - - - - - - -
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Henry Bankhead, Texas prisoner # 347694, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal,
following the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). By moving for IFP status, Bankhead
is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status
should not be granted on appeal because his appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issues and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51179
-2-
Bankhead argues that the district court erred in holding
that James Heyens was not deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Bankhead’s medical records indicate that he received adequate
medical care for his stomach problems. Bankhead’s disagreement
with his medical treatment does not establish a constitutional
violation. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.
1997). Bankhead has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous
issue on appeal. Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s
order certifying that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue.
Bankhead’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of Bankhead’s § 1983 action
as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous also
counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Bankhead already
had one strike against him for purposes of § 1915(g) in Bankhead
v. Turnbow, No. 7:97-CV-160 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 1997), which was
affirmed by this court in Bankhead v. Turnbow, No. 97-10886 (5th
Cir. Dec. 10, 1997). Bankhead has now accumulated three strikes.
He may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.