IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31003
Conference Calendar
CONRAD RICHARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Sheriff;
FELICIANA FORENSIC FACILITY;
HARRY F. CONNICK, District Attorney’s Office,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-3768-F
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Conrad Richard seeks to appeal the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
lawsuit. His brief is primarily devoted to a recitation of
Louisiana law regarding concursus proceedings, summary-judgment
standards, management of class-action cases, writs of mandamus
and habeas corpus, and other laws inapplicable to his case.
However, he also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that New
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31003
-2-
Orleans police officers sprayed him with pepper spray and took
him to Charity Hospital, where he was denied medical treatment,
and that he was beaten four times while he was in jail.
Richard did not raise these allegations in the district
court, and this court will not consider them. See Shanks v.
AlliedSignal, Inc., 169 F.3d 988, 993 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999); Burch
v. Coca-Cola, 119 F.3d 305, 319 (5th Cir. 1997). Richard has
abandoned the claims he raised in the district court by failing
to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993)(arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned).
His appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and is
therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Richard’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Both the district court’s dismissal of Richard’s complaint
and this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal count as
“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Richard is
CAUTIONED that if he accumulates a third “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.