Rodriguez v. Pratt ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11200
Conference Calendar
RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAM PRATT, Warden; P. CHILDS, Jail Administrator, Federal
Detention Center, Seagoville; NFN ANDERSON, Unit Manager, FCI,
Seagoville; D. CROWE, Unit Five Case Manager, FCI,
Seagoville; NFN PRICE, Unit Five Counselor, FCI, Seagoville;
NFN FARLEY, Special Investigation Services Agent, FCI,
Seagoville; WILLIAM MOBLEY, Disciplinary Hearing
Administrator, BOP, South Central Regional Office, Dallas,
TX,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-210-L
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodolfo Rodriguez, former federal prisoner # 47735-079,
appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his
civil rights complaint as frivolous and for seeking monetary
relief from defendants who are immune from such relief pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-11200
-2-
Rodriguez has failed to brief the relevant issue, as he has
provided neither argument nor authorities to show that the
district court erred in dismissing his suit. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
“prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
if he has had three actions or appeals dismissed for
frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim.”
Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1997)(citing
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996)). The
district court’s dismissal of Rodriguez’ complaint as frivolous
and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous both count
as “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba,
103 F.3d at 388. Rodriguez is warned that if he accumulates a
third “strike,” he will no longer be allowed 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).
Rodriguez has also moved this court for appointment of
counsel to represent him on appeal. That motion is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED;
SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.