United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60775
Conference Calendar
RAYMOND FAYE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMY MELTON, Correctional Supervisor, in his individual
capacity; HELEN DAVIS, Correctional Supervisor, in her
individual capacity; JIMMY GANT, Correctional Supervisor,
in his individual capacity; FRED SMITH, Correctional
Supervisor, in his individual capacity; CHARLES ALLEN,
Correctional Supervisor, in his individual capacity; JIM
HARMON, Maintenance Director, in his individual capacity;
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner, in his individual capacity;
E. L. SPARKMAN, Deputy Commissioner of Corrections, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:03-CV-240-PA
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymond Faye, a Mississippi prisoner (# 63653), has filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal
following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-60775
-2-
administrative remedies. Faye 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, Faye 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, Faye’s 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 counts as a strike
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). Faye
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; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.