United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30171
Conference Calendar
HAROLD JOE BLACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FORT WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; WARDEN BATSON;
CAPTAIN SAVAGE; SERGEANT COATES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:05-CV-1125
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold Joe Black, Louisiana prisoner # 111111, moves to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissal as frivolous of his time-barred
civil rights complaint. Black contends that his civil rights
complaint is not time-barred because (1) the one-year limitations
period was tolled during the pendency of his administrative and
judicial review and (2) he is entitled to equitable tolling
because he did not receive notification of the Louisiana Supreme
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30171
-2-
Court’s August 20, 2004, denial of his writ application until
June 2005.
By moving for IFP, Black 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). Black, however, has
not shown that the district court’s time-bar determination
presents a nonfrivolous issue, and he is not entitled to
equitable tolling because he has not shown that he diligently
pursued his legal rights. Cf. Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d
508, 511 (5th Cir.), modified on reh’g, 223 F.3d 797 (2000).
In light of the foregoing, Black’s appeal is without arguable
merit and is dismissed. 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike
for the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Black received a third strike
for our dismissal of Black v. Wade Corr. Ctr., No. 02-30625 (5th
Cir. Feb. 19, 2003) (unpublished). He 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 § 1915(g).
IFP STATUS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.