¶1 Mark Delafosse, Louisiana prisoner #354829, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s final judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Delafosse’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).
¶2 Delafosse challenges the district court’s application of the physical-injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) to bar his First Amendment claim for compensatory damages due to denial of a religious diet. This court has rejected Delafosse’s argument. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374-75 (5th Cir.2005).
¶3 The district court dismissed as moot Delafosse’s claim for injunctive relief based on the denial of a religious diet, because Delafosse had been moved to another prison facility. In his IFP motion and brief, Delafosse notes in his recitation of the procedural history of his case that he had filed a post-judgment motion contending that the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot was based on a mistake of fact. … He does not mention the mootness determination at any other point in his IFP motion or brief. Therefore, he has failed to brief this issue and thereby abandoned it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
¶4 Because Delafosse has not identified a non-frivolous issue for appeal, his motion for IFP status on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
¶5 APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.