Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30288/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30288

Summary Calendar

CHESTER MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONS CORP OF AMERICA; TIM WILKINSON; TIM MORGAN;

ANGEL A MARTIN; VIRGIL LUCAS; ET AL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:08-CV-921

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chester Matthews, Louisiana prisoner # 383196, has filed a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied

Matthews’s IFP motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving for IFP status, Matthews is challenging the district court’s

certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 19, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-30288 Document: 00511007033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010
No. 09-30288

2

Aside from conclusional allegations, Matthews does not challenge the

district court’s determination that he failed to present an arguable or

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. In his motion, Matthews merely asserts that it

was error for the district court to dismiss his complaint as frivolous and deny

IFP without conducting any investigation into the facts of the case, especially in

light of his pro se status. Matthews devotes a majority of his brief to his request

for appointment of counsel. He reasserts the plethora of allegations he asserted

in his complaint regarding the conditions of confinement at the Winn

Correctional Center. However, his allegations are general and conclusory.

Matthews has not shown that the district court’s certification was

incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.

Accordingly, Matthews’s IFP motion is denied. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). His appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Matthews’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied as well.

The district court’s dismissal of Matthews’s complaint as frivolous and the

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).

Matthews is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he

will no longer be allowed 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 § 1915(g).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

 Case: 09-30288 Document: 00511007033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010