IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21113
Conference Calendar
STEPHAN STROUD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLEN POLLUNSKY; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH;
OWEN J. MURRAY; TONY GARCIA; MAJOR BELL; TROY SIMPSON,
Lieutenant; BRYAN D. BUCK; WILLIAM P. WINDHAM; TIMOTHY L.
MASSEY; BOBBY VINCENT; GRACE CHOW, M.D.; HANG T. PHUNG, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-4004
---------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas state prisoner Stephan Stroud, #745916, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim. He has also filed
numerous motions seeking miscellaneous relief, including motions
for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
protective custody, emergency relief, to strike appellees’ brief,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21113
- 2 -
and to stay the proceedings. All of Stroud’s pending motions are
DENIED. The appellees’ request to strike the attachments and
exhibits to Stroud’s appeal brief is DENIED as MOOT.
Although this court applies less stringent standards to
parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel
and liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se
parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with
the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59
F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). This court will not construct
arguments or theories for Stroud absent any coherent discussion
of those issues. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Stroud’s appeal is
without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is
frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this
court’s dismissal of Stroud’s appeal count as two strikes against
him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Stroud has already
accumulated two strikes. See Stroud v. Patton, No. 00-40819 (5th
Cir. Dec. 13, 2000)(unpublished). Because he is subject to the
three-strikes bar under the statute, Stroud is BARRED from
proceeding 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.