Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60262/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60262-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60262

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN LYONS; AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED; YAHOO, 

INCORPORATED; OTHER UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:13-CV-711

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Garland Atwood, II, federal prisoner # 07954-043, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s dismissal 

of his civil complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

Atwood alleged various claims arising from the purported hacking of a website 

that he controlled and the use of that appropriated website to disparage him. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60262 Document: 00513335950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 15-60262

2

By moving to proceed IFP, Atwood is challenging the district court’s 

certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). Our inquiry into an 

appellant’s 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Atwood has failed to brief any argument addressing the district court’s 

reasons for dismissing the complaint and certifying that the appeal was not 

taken in good faith. Accordingly, Atwood has abandoned any challenge to the 

certification decision, see Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and failed to show that his appeal involves any 

arguably meritorious issue, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because he has not 

demonstrated that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, we deny his motion 

to proceed IFP and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 

202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Both the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a 

claim and our dismissal of this appeal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). 

We caution Atwood that, if he accumulates 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 § 1915(g). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED. 

 Case: 15-60262 Document: 00513335950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2016