IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41153
Conference Calendar
CHIMA AGIM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIDENTIFIED LUMPKIN, Captain, Gurney Transfer Unit;
UNIDENTIFIED SCROGGINS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-312
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chima Agim, Texas prisoner # 870112, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim. Agim argues that the district
court erred as follows: (1) in holding that Texas provided
adequate post-deprivation remedies; (2) by not issuing a
questionnaire to investigate the dismissal of his state claim;
and (3) in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41153
-2-
review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim. See
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
We hold that Agim is prevented by the Parratt/Hudson
doctrine from pursuing a confiscation of property claim in
federal court. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981);
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A state
post-deprivation remedy is not inadequate simply because the
state court determines that a prisoner has forfeited his rights
to seek recovery under state procedural laws. See Holloway v.
Walker, 784 F.2d 1287, 1293 (5th Cir. 1986). Because we hold
that state post-deprivation remedies were adequate, we also
reject Agim’s arguments that the district court should have
issued a questionnaire and that it abused its discretion in
denying his motion to appoint counsel.
Agim’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Agim is warned
that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike
for the district court's dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding dismissals as frivolous in
the district courts and the court of appeals count as strikes for
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes). We caution Agim that once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not 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).
DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.