Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lamonte MATHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard STALDER, Secretary; Burl N. Cain; Donald Barr; Doug Durret; Howard Prince; Leslie Dupont; Darrel Vannoy; State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-30464.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
    Lamont J. Mathews, Safety & Corrections, Angola, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lamonte Mathews, Louisiana prisoner number 120891, has filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) following the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. By moving for IFP, Mathews is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted because the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). Mathews’s IFP “motion must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the certification decision.” Id.

Mathews has briefed the merits of his civil rights claims only. 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, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Because Mathews does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the district court’s certification decision, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See id.

Mathews has not shown that the district court erred in certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issues. Mathews’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Mathews that once he accumulates three strikes, 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       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.