IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31351
Conference Calendar
GARY POCHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; HARRY F. CONNICK,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1364-D
--------------------
October 26, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gary Poche, Louisiana inmate number 120409, appeals the
district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Poche argues that he should have been
provided with a free copy of his criminal records under the state
public records law. This argument does not involve a
constitutional question. "Under ordinary circumstances . . . an
indigent does not have a federally-protected right to a free copy
of his transcript or other court records merely to search for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-31351
-2-
possible error in order to file a petition for collateral relief
at some future date." Colbert v. Beto, 439 F.2d 1130, 1131 (5th
Cir. 1971).
Although Poche mentions the denial-of-due-process and
denial-of-access-to-the-courts claims he raised in the district
court, Poche has not briefed either of those claims on appeal.
Issues which are not briefed on appeal are waived. Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Poche also argues that District Attorney Connick is not
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The district
court did not consider whether District Attorney Connick is
immune from suit in determining that Poche had failed to state a
cognizable constitutional claim.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous and
the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim by the district court each count as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Poche now has two strikes. See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We
caution Poche that once he accumulates three strikes, he will not
be permitted 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.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.