Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0242-01.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

Patrick Wayne WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER INC; Abbott Manufacturer; Watson Manufacturer; Doctor Dewana Bobo; Doctor Carolyn Lewis; Doctor Unknown Mai; Doctor Unknown Muhuza; Doctor H.L. Rosenburg; Anthony Tarver, Dr.; Burl Cain; “Mike” Foster; Charles Foti; Richard Ieyoub; Jay Kominsky; Dora Rabalais; Richard Stalder, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-30532.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    
      Patrick Wayne Williams, Angola, LA, pro se.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Patrick Wayne Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 317402, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the dismissal of his products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Williams’s motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’ ” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (citation omitted). If the appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua sponte under 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202, n. 24.

Williams has failed to identify any error relevant to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint or the denial of his IFP motion. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Because Williams has waived the only issue relevant to his appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Williams’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 as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). The district court’s dismissal as frivolous of Williams’s civil rights complaint that we affirm this day in Williams v. Sheriffs Department, — Fed.Appx-, No. 05-30598, 2006 WL 470607 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 2006), also counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted 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).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 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.