United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 24, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30216
Summary Calendar
VINCENT MARK CASTILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA; ET AL,
Defendants,
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-3293-I
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincent Mark Castillo, Louisiana inmate #428777, proceeding
pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in
an appeal of the district court’s final judgment that dismissed
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Castillo’s IFP motion is a
challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal
is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30216
-2-
(5th Cir. 1997). Castillo’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
Castillo asserts that he was arrested and incarcerated on
false, misdemeanor charges. He asserts that he was beaten,
injured, and forced to shave his hair in contravention of a
religious vow. He also asserts that he was denied a pork-free
diet while he was detained.
Castillo asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the
defense to inform the jury that he was incarcerated and in not
declaring a mistrial; by refusing to compel discovery, subpoena
witnesses, and appoint counsel; and in charging the jury.
Castillo states that the district court judge should have been
recused. Castillo contends that he had to testify, although he
had not recently shaved and showered. He assert that his
custodians confiscated his legal papers and trial preparation
materials and did not allow him to make calls to obtain evidence
and witnesses for trial.
Castillo has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. He
has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on
appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d
at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 04-30216
-3-
The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous counts as a
strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Castillo previously
accumulated strikes for the dismissal of his appeal in Castillo
v. Louisiana, 2004 WL 316044 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2004), and for
the dismissal of his complaint in Castillo v. Louisiana, No. 00-
CV-1826-B (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2002). Thus, barring reversal of
this opinion, Castillo has accumulated three strikes for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387. Castillo
is therefore BARRED from proceeding 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).
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED.