United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 25, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50352
Summary Calendar
ALAN QUINN LUCAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAYTON J. POPPELL, Warden; MICHAEL DAVIS; ERASMO BRAVO; JOHN
BEAIRD; CARLA CONTRERAS; GLORIA BOTELLO; GARY SHAFFER; ANTONIO
ROBLEDO; RICARDO PEREZ; MARY GUERRERO; SHELLEY GRAYSON; TINA
OLIVAREZ; MICHAEL MCGOVERN, also known as Michael McGouran;
ADOLFO R. PEREZ; MIKE CORTEZ; JOSE TURRUBIARTES; GRACE RAMIREZ;
CARL PETERSON; HELEN HERNANDEZ; ISABEL TIJERINA; UNKNOWN
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Number 1; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
Number 2; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Number 3; MANUEL SEGURA;
BERNEY KESZLER; ZEHRA PEERBHOY; JAMES HEYEN; DARLA RUDY; SUSAN
STATTMILLER; CHRISTINE HASKIN; LILLIAN VALENTINE; LARRY MASSEY;
ELISA BETTALE; DEBI CARVER; DWIGHT HOWARD; JESSICA TREVINO;
EARNESTINE CARROLL; LUIS DELATORRE; MARY BEARD; RENATA WILLIAMS;
JOSHLYN THOMAS; DEBBIE NEAL; BESSIE PRICE; ONE UNKNOWN MEDICAL
PERSONNEL; JORGE CARDENAS; RONNIE OWENS; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH;
RICHARD SEWARD; GARY JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-1235
USDC No. SA-01-CV-357
USDC No. SA-02-CV-167
- - - - - - - - - -
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alan Quinn Lucas, Texas prisoner # 644056, moves to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the dismissal of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50352
- 2 -
three consolidated pro se civil actions. By moving for IFP
status, Lucas is challenging the district court’s certification
that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his
appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Lucas states only that the district court dismissed his
actions as “docket management strategy.” His brief contains no
argument that the district court erred in dismissing claims in
each of his actions on the ground that they were frivolous or
failed to state a claim, nor does the brief provide any argument
that the district court erred in dismissing his actions as
malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Even a pro se
appellant must brief an issue to preserve it for appellate
review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that
the appeal was not taken in good faith. Lucas’ 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 district court’s dismissal of Lucas’ claims and actions
under § 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) counts as a “strike” for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the dismissal of this appeal
as frivolous also counts as a strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Lucas is WARNED that if he
accumulates a third strike 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 imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 03-50352
- 3 -
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.