IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10876
Summary Calendar
LEE NICHOLS MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MEDICAL STAFF, Allred Unit; HARRY EDWARDS, Unit Health
Administrator; VINEED KUMAR, Nurse; CHANEY, Nurse; PATRICIA
BRACKEEN, Nurse; DIDLO, Doctor; ORE, Doctor; UNKNOWN NURSE,
Number One and Number Two; ROBYN WEBB, Nurse; CHRIS WALLS, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Officer; KAREN DEBORAH WALLS;
DAVID W. ELLIOT, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Officer;
JOHN D. COLE, Sergeant; MARK E. ADKINSON, Lieutenant; RONALD
W. FERGUSAN, Officer DANIEL W. MORIARTY, Officer; MACK, Sergeant;
DAVIS, Dayshift Officer; GREENE, Officer; AL GIBBONS, Volunteer
Chaplain; GRIEVANCE OFFICER, Numbers 1-7; MOONEYHAM, Assistant
Warden; WATHEN; GUY ELLIOT, Director, Community Supervision and
Corrections Department; BARRY L. MACHA, District Attorney Wichita
Falls; ATTORNEYS, Seven,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:02-CV-99-R
--------------------
February 13, 2003
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lee Nichols Miller, Texas prisoner # 688520, has filed an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10876
-2-
appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. By moving for IFP, Miller is challenging the
district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on
appeal because his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Miller’s IFP
“motion must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for
the certification decision.” Id.
Miller does not address the district court’s reasons for
certification that appeal was not taken in good faith (i.e., his
failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended
complaint). Because Miller does not provide any analysis of this
issue, he therefore waives any appeal of it. See United States
v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002); American States
Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998).
Miller has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that
the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Miller’s request for
IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Miller’s
motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
Miller is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996).
Miller is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes
No. 02-10876
-3-
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil
action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in
any facility unless he is under emanate danger of serious
physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.