### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20003 Summary Calendar

EDDIE DON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. JACQUEL I NE CHENIER, Supervising Parole Officer; RISSIE OWENS, C hairman; ROI DICKERSON, Supervising Parole Officer; CHIAZO R OFOROILE, Hearing Officer; JOSEPH PRESIFKE, Attorney, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-2881

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eddie Don Johnson, T e x a s p r isoner # 364033, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U

. S .C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to s t a te a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). Although Johnson ar gu e s th e m e rit s o f s ome of his claims on appeal, he wholly fails to challenge the district court’s reasons U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 29 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20003 Document: 00511524820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2011No. 11-20003

for the dismissal of his cl a ims, specifically that (1) to the extent that Johnson sough t to void his conviction and obtain immediate release from prison, the claims sounded in habeas and not in civil rights and, thus, would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a v i a b le civil rights claim; (2) Johnson’s claims for monetary damages for wrongful incarceration were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (3) Johnson’s § 1983 claims and his claims asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132,

were time barred, and, i n t h e a l ternative, that Johnson had failed to allege a nonfrivolou s AD A c l a im. By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reasons for dismissal, Johnson has aban d o n e d the only ground for a p p e a l

. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Johnson’s a p p e a l i s without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is dis m i s s e d

. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. Johnson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and this court’s dismissal

o f t h e appeal count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adep e g b a v . Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); see a ls o Patton v. Jefferson Corre c t i o n a l Center , 136 F.3d 458, 462-63 (5th Cir. 1998). Johnson 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 de t a i n e d in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See§ 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.

2 Case: 11-20003 Document: 00511524820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2011