IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50078
Conference Calendar
RHONDA FLEMING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAMELA WILLIAMS, Warden;
WAYNE SCOTT, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-97-CV-415
- - - - - - - - - -
October 18, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rhonda Fleming, Texas prisoner #598829, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal from the dismissal
of her civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. By
moving for IFP, Fleming is challenging the district court’s
certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal
because her appeal 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50078
- 2 -
Fleming’s appeal brief merely refers to a “climate of racial
discrimination in areas of parole, housing, job assignments,
medical treatment, disciplinary action, etc.,” and asserts that
she “provided the District Court with statistical evidence to
substantiate her claim.” However, she offers no factual or legal
argument specifically addressing the district court’s grounds for
dismissal. This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues
that [Fleming] has failed to assert.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Fleming fails to show that she will raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal, her motion to proceed IFP is
DENIED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this
court’s dismissal of Fleming’s appeal count as two strikes
against her for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Fleming has
already accumulated two strikes. See Fleming v. Nance, No. 00-
50079 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2000). Pursuant to § 1915(g), Fleming
is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed
while she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she
is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g)
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.