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. 02-30819
Conference Calendar
JOHN L. MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIKE FOSTER; RICHARD STALDER; JIM ROGERS; JAMES M. LEBLANC;
TIM WILKINSON; C.M. LENSING; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY;
ROLAND LADYREK; CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-3385
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John L. Martin, Louisiana inmate #182277, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals the dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Martin asserts that while he was
confined in the Orleans Parish Prison, he did not receive medical
treatment for his injured finger, he was subjected to less than
adequate security and witnessed inmate assaults, and he was
denied sufficient clothing and heat. He contends that at the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30819
-2-
Hunt Correctional Center, the law library was inadequate, the
meals were not nutritious, the security was not sufficient, he
was denied adequate medical treatment, and he was housed in
overcrowded cells where other inmates, including HIV-positive
inmates, were committing sexual acts.
The district court dismissed Martin’s claims based on the
conditions of his confinement as frivolous because Martin sued
supervisory personnel and did not allege personal involvement by
the defendants. Martin has not addressed the district court’s
reasons for dismissing his claims. Accordingly, Martin has
abandoned an appeal of these issues. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The district court dismissed Martin’s claims based on the
conditions of confinement in the Orleans Parish Prison as
unexhausted. A prisoner must exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to bringing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 294 (5th
Cir. 1998). Although Martin mentions that there was no
administrative remedy procedure and that he did not receive
responses to grievances, he has not challenged sufficiently the
district court’s determination that his claims were not
exhausted. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
Martin has abandoned his claims concerning the disciplinary
proceedings and his release on parole by failing to assert the
No. 02-30819
-3-
issues in this court. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Martin contends that he was not afforded sufficient notice
of the Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), hearing
and that he was required to appear at the hearing without his
notes. Martin, however, has not explained how the presentation
of his issues was affected by the alleged lack of notice and the
absence of his notes.
Martin’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint each count as “strikes” under the
three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Martin is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates
a third “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able
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).
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.