Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

84 F. App'x 462

Whitt v. Moorehead

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided January 8, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-01-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2004

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Yohey v. Collins · Adepegba v. Hammons

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-01-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM. *

¶1 Robert L. Whitt, Mississippi state prisoner # 38894, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Whitt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. By moving for IFP status, Whitt is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

¶2 We ordinarily require a district court to state its reasons for certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See id. Here the reasons are apparent from the record and a remand for their formal statement by the district court would be a pointless exercise.

¶3 Whitt has failed to challenge specifically the district court’s finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith and was legally frivolous. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Because Whitt has failed to address the only appealable issue, the district court’s certification of the appeal as frivolous, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See id.

¶4 Whitt’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cm. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Whitt therefore has two “strikes” under § 1915(g), including the one imposed by the district court. Whitt is warned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to § 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).

¶5 IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.

*

¶6 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.

/84/fappx/462 · .json · Public domain