Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0423-02.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

Kent METCALF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip GEORGE, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity; Keith Parker, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity; Ray Braylock, Narcotics Department, in his individual and official capacity; Monroe County Sheriff Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-60190.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
    Kent Metcalf, pro se, Leakesville, MS, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kent Metcalf, Mississippi prisoner #T7454, has filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) following the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous Metcalfs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. By moving for IFP, Metcalf 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). Metcalfs IFP “motion must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the certification decision.” Id.

Metcalf asserts only that the district court was wrong for denying him IFP because he had presented sufficient evidence to support his claims. 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 Metcalf does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the district court’s certification decision, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See id.

Metcalf 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. Metcalfs 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.

Metcalf is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). If Metcalf accrues three strikes, he will not be able 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 MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS 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.