United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50184
Conference Calendar
ANDREW FRANK LESTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRAD LIVINGSTON; DOUG DRETKE; CHRISTINA MELTON CRAIN; DON B.
JONES; WILLIAM MOODY; ADRIAN A. ARRIAGA; MARY BACON; OLIVER J.
BELL; PATRICIA A. DAY; PIERCE MILLER; GREGORY COLEMAN; JOHN OR
JANE DOES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CV-1117
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrew Frank Lester, Texas prisoner # 695275, moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the
dismissal, as frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). We construe the motion
as a challenge to the district court’s certification that the
appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50184
-2-
Lester’s motion does not directly challenge the district
court’s reasons for finding his complaint frivolous. Failure
to identify an error in the district court’s analysis has the
same effect as though the appellant had not appealed at all.
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally
construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve
them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is
frivolous. Accordingly, Lester’s request for IFP status is
denied, and the appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Lester is
cautioned that the dismissal of his complaint by the district
court and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count
as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Lester also is cautioned
that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), 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 § 1915(g).
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.