Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11016/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
204th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Appellee
Dallas County Clerk of the Court
Appellee
Kevin D. Moore
Appellant
State of Texas
Appellee

Document Text:

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. 09-11016

Summary Calendar

KEVIN D. MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

204TH DISTRICT COURT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; 

DALLAS COUNTY CLERK OF THE COURT; STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:08-CV-2281

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Moore, Texas prisoner # 36285-177, moves this court to proceed in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 29, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-11016 Document: 00511095498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2010
No. 09-11016

2

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint because it was based on

a violation of state law and presented no constitutional issue. The court denied

Moore leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken

in good faith. Moore’s IFP motion is a challenge to that certification. See Baugh

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

Moore does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing the complaint. Because he fails to identify error in the district court’s analysis, any argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Moore has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion

to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Both dismissal of the initial complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Moore is cautioned that if

he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), 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).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

 Case: 09-11016 Document: 00511095498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2010