IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50342
Conference Calendar
RHONDA FLEMING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RATLIFF, Officer, Reception-Gatesville Unit, Individually
and in her Official Capacity; CRAFT, Sergeant,
Reception-Gatesville Unit, Individually and in His Official
Capacity; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, in his Official
Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-97-CV-405
- - - - - - - - - -
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 as frivolous. She also seeks a
transcript of her evidentiary hearing at government expense. The
motion for a transcript at government expense is DENIED. 28
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50342
- 2 -
U.S.C. § 753(f); Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985).
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). The district court
carefully reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that
Fleming’s alleged injury was de minimis. See Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Fleming’s appeal
brief 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.
Our opinion today in Fleming v. Williams, No. 00-50078,
notified Fleming that she is now subject to the three-strikes bar
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We again advise Fleming that she is
BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal brought
in a United States court unless she is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.