United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-10974
Conference Calendar
CHARLES WILBURN SAMPLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LESLIE WOODS, Warden Allred Unit; KENNETH R. BRIGHT,
Major; TIMOTHY TALLMAN, Correctional Officer III; LADONNA
MITCHELL, Correctional Officer III; THOMAS KIRBY,
Correctional Officer III; KENNETH LATHAM, Sergeant; MARK
E. ADKINS, Lieutenant; JAMES W. HART, JR., Captain; NFN
SMITH, Property Officer; DEBRA SIZEMORE, Correctional
Officer; JESSE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; BRIAN A. POLLOCK,
Correctional Officer; ERNEST D. IVEY, Disciplinary Hearing
Officer; CHERYL D. BERGER, Unit Grievance Coordinator; ALVIN L.
EASTERLING, Unit Grievance Coordinator; BELINDA GENTRY, Open
Records Coordinator; HERMON DIDLO, Psychology Dr.; JOHN WOMBLE,
Dr.; NFN KING, Correctional Officer; PAMELA FRENCH, Correctional
Officer; JOHN WIRTZ, Sergeant; DAVID LAMBERT, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CV-31-R
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Wilburn Samples, a Texas prisoner (# 683547),
challenges the district court’s denial of his application to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10974
-2-
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Samples is
effectively challenging the district court’s certification that
he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).
By failing to direct his motion solely to the district
court’s reasons for the certification decision, however, Samples
has effectively abandoned the only issue that is properly before
this court. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Samples’ 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.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal
of the complaint as frivolous by the district court both count
as “strikes” for purposes of the “three strikes” provision,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388
(5th Cir. 1996). Samples is cautioned that if he accumulates
three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP 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).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; THREE-STRIKES BAR
WARNING ISSUED.