Dingler v. Bowles , 113 F. App'x 6 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 18, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10374
Conference Calendar
JOSEPH DINGLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIM BOWLES, Dallas County Sheriff; DETENTION SERVICE
OFFICER KEYLON, Officer; DETENTION SERVICE OFFICER BATES,
Officer; DETENTION SERVICE OFFICER KIRPATRICK, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-2095-M
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Dingler, Texas inmate #1192066, proceeding pro se,
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in an appeal of
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
as moot. Dingler’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district
court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith.
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10374
-2-
Although we apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and
liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties
must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the
requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d
523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). When an appellant fails to identify
any error in the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
complaint, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed
that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Dingler does not challenge the findings and conclusions
adopted by the district court in its certification order. He
does not identify any error in the district court’s reasons for
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, he
has abandoned the only issue on appeal. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at
748.
Dingler has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. He
has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on
appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and
the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous counts as a
strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
No. 04-10374
-3-
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Dingler previously
accumulated two strikes in Dingler v. Bowles, No. 04-10130 (5th
Cir. June 22, 2004). Thus, Dingler has accumulated three strikes
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at
386-87. Dingler 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED.