United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40197
Conference Calendar
MACARIO PERALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CV-123
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Macario Perales appeals from the district court’s dismissal
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)
and FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(IFP) civil rights complaint. Perales alleged that the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) violated his constitutional
rights when, after disciplinary proceedings, the TDCJ seized
money from his prison trust account to pay for prison property
that Perales damaged.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40197
-2-
Although this court applies less stringent standards to
parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel
and liberally construes pro se briefs, pro se parties must still
brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of
FED. R. APP. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.
1994). Perales makes no coherent argument that addresses the
basis of the district court’s decision, and this court will not
construct arguments or theories absent a coherent discussion of
those issues. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Perales’ appeal is
without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996). Perales is WARNED that if he accumulates three
strikes 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.