IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60117
Conference Calendar
HENRY CLAY LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; MICHAEL C. MOORE; KATHY KING;
DALE HARKEY; THOMAS FORTNER; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CV-515-GR
--------------------
October 29, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Clay Lewis, Mississippi prisoner #54151/12339, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights lawsuit for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Lewis’ motion for appointment of
counsel on appeal is DENIED.
Lewis contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion for appointment of counsel. Because neither Lewis’
abilities nor the type and complexity of the instant case are
exceptional, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60117
-2-
dismissing Lewis’ complaint without granting his motion for
appointment of counsel. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811
F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
Lewis did not assert in the district court, and is therefore
foreclosed from asserting for the first time in this appeal, his
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and his demands for a
discharge from imprisonment, a declaratory judgment stating that
the defendants maliciously prosecuted him and committed an abuse
of process, compensatory damages due to his illegal habitual-
offender sentence, and punitive damages. See Murphy v. Collins,
26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, Lewis has
abandoned those claims that he raised in the district court and
failed to assert on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Lewis has failed to adequately brief, and has
therefore abandoned, his only remaining claims, which are his
demands for compensatory damages for malicious prosecution and
abuse of process. See id. Lewis’ brief sets forth legal
standards for the claims and states that the defendants committed
the offenses as a result of his illegal conviction and sentence
under the habitual-offender statute; however, the brief does not
contain the reasons for Lewis’ contentions or identify the parts
of the record on which he relies. See FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9)(A).
Lewis’ appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this
No. 02-60117
-3-
court’s dismissal of Lewis’ appeal count as two “strikes” against
him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The instant appeal was
pending when this court imposed the “three-strikes” bar against
Lewis in Lewis v. Marshall County Correctional Facility, No.
01-60581 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2002) (unpublished). Lewis is
reminded that he remains barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from
proceeding in forma pauperis in the district court or in this
court in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or
detained in any facility “unless [he] is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED
AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT.