United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51541
Conference Calendar
ANTONIO STEELE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DANIEL VALENZUELA; DR. SHERI TALLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-100
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Steele, Texas prisoner # 923537, has filed a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The
district court denied Steele’s IFP motion and certified that the
appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP, Steele is
challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
In district court, Steele contended that the defendants had
violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
failing to provide proper and effective medical treatment
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51541
-2-
consistent with his religious beliefs. Steele’s medical records,
together with his own allegations, show that Steele received
medical treatment for his skin condition. Steele’s disagreement
with the course of that medical treatment does not constitute
deliberate indifference. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991). Steele has not addressed the district
court’s determination that defendants Morris, Shabaaz, Smith, and
Valenzuela could not be held liable as supervisory officials.
Therefore, these claims are deemed abandoned. See Hughes v.
Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
Steele has not shown that the district court’s certification
was incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and
is thus frivolous. Accordingly, Steele’s request for IFP status
is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of Steele’s appeal as frivolous by this court
counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Steele previously
accumulated two § 1915(g) strikes. See Steele v. Glenn, No.
04-51277 (5th Cir. May 26, 2006) (unpublished) (dismissing appeal
as frivolous after district court dismissed complaint for failure
to state a claim). Accordingly, Steele is barred from proceeding
IFP in any civil action or appeal brought while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
No. 05-51541
-3-
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.