IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 17, 2009
No. 09-50012
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
DAVID RAMOS
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DR PAUL W. SHRODE; INVESTIGATOR REX PARSONS; INVESTIGATOR
JAVIER SOSA; TECHNICIAN SAL TELLES; UNKNOWN STAFF
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:08-CV-418
Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Ramos, El Paso County Detention Facility inmate # 9291422,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure
to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court dismissed
Ramos’s complaint pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971). Although Ramos argues the merits of his claims on appeal, he
wholly fails to challenge the district court’s reason for dismissal. By failing to
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 09-50012
brief any argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal, Ramos
has abandoned the only ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Ramos’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is
dismissed. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Ramos’s motion for the appointment of counsel
is denied.
The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and this court’s dismissal
of the appeal count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Ramos has at least one
previous strike. Ramos v. Samaniego, No. EP-07-CA-320-FM, 2008 WL 3539252
at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 24, 2008) (unpublished). Because he has accumulated three
strikes, Ramos is now 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.” § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED; MOTION
DENIED.
2