IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20030
Conference Calendar
CLINTON W. DELESPINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-3578
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clinton W. Delespine, Texas inmate #187450, requests leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Delespine’s
motions for release on annual report status and for an
evidentiary hearing are DENIED.
Delespine asserts that he was granted IFP in prior district
court proceedings, that the case was transferred, and that the
district court should not have denied him leave to proceed IFP.
He contends also that his parole was revoked erroneously.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-20030
-2-
The district court entered final judgment, dismissing
Delespine’s complaint in Delespine v. Kyle, 94-CV-1588 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 23, 1996), two years prior to the initiation of the
complaint in the instant case. Delespine has not complied with
28 U.S.C. § 1915. He has not filed the affidavit and prison
trust fund account statement, which are required for the district
court to make a financial assessment. See § 1915(a)(1), (2);
Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 652 (5th Cir. 2000) (prisoner
must file IFP application containing all information required by
§ 1915(a)(1) and (2)). Additionally, Delespine cannot show that
he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v.
Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly,
Delespine’s motion for IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED
as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Delespine that once
he accumulates 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED; OTHER MOTIONS DENIED.