Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60173/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Brewer
Appellee
Robert Earl Ellis
Appellant
Christopher B. Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Appellee
Lawrence Kelley
Appellee
Kathryn McIntyre
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. 09-60173

Summary Calendar

ROBERT EARL ELLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KATHRYN MCINTYRE, ILAP Supervisor, in her individual capacity;

CHRISTOPHER B EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, in his official capacity; LAWRENCE KELLEY,

Superintendent, in his individual capacity; JAMES BREWER, Warden, in his

individual capacity,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:08-CV-95

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Earl Ellis, Mississippi prisoner # 112146, moves this court to

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

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Ellis alleged in the district court that he had

been denied access to the courts because prison officials denied him requested

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 26, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-60173 Document: 00511036454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2010
No. 09-60173

2

legal materials and legal assistance. The district court determined that Ellis

had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because Ellis had failed to establish that he suffered

prejudice as a result of the alleged denial of legal access. The district court also

denied Ellis’s request to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was

not taken in good faith. Ellis’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Ellis argues only that he is not financially eligible to prepay the costs of

an appeal and that because the district court allowed him to proceed IFP, he

should be permitted to do so on appeal. Although Ellis lists the constitutional

claims that he would raise on appeal, this does not suffice to show that he will

raise a nonfrivolous appellate claim. See United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287,

295 (5th Cir. 1986) (direct criminal appeal) (determining that a party who offers

only a listing of alleged errors without citing supporting authorities or references

to the record abandons those appellate claims). Because Ellis fails to identify

any 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). Additionally, Ellis is unable to show that he would raise a nonfrivolous

appellate issue because he has not established that the purported denial of

access to the courts impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).

Ellis 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

for leave 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. Because Ellis has failed to show

exceptional circumstances, his motion for appointment of counsel is likewise

denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

 Case: 09-60173 Document: 00511036454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2010
No. 09-60173

3

The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal for failure

to state a claim count as two strikes under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Ellis is cautioned that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any

civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility

unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 09-60173 Document: 00511036454 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2010