IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60724

TROY CHEW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FIGUEROA, Warden Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility; PHILLIPS, 

Warden Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility; TALLAHATCHIE

COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION 

OF AMERICA; NICHOLAS SINNOTT, Kitchen Supervisor; MR. NELSON, 

Sued in official and individual capacity; MR. BENNY ANDERSON, Head 

Kitchen Supervisor,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________________________________________________________

TROY L. CHEW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, CDCR; CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA; TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, TCCF; 

F. E. FIGUEROA, Warden, TCCF; NICHOLAS SINNOTT, Supervisor, TCCF; 

MR. NELSON, Sued in his official and individual capacity; MR. BENNY 

ANDERSON, Head Kitchen Supervisor, 

Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-60724 Document: 00512800348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2014
No. 13-60724

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:12-CV-135

USDC No. 2:12-CV-209

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Troy Chew, Mississippi prisoner # P49667, filed a civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of the Tallahatchie County 

Correctional Facility (TCCF) in Tutwiler, Mississippi, the facility itself, and 

the Correctional Corporation of America in the Northern District of 

Mississippi. Chew alleged that he was working as a butcher at TCCF and 

slipped and fell in the kitchen injuring himself. Chew filed a similar complaint 

in the Eastern District of California. This complaint was transferred to the 

Northern District of Mississippi, and the two cases were consolidated. 

The district court dismissed the consolidated complaints for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court found that 

Chew’s suit was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

Chew moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court 

denied the motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith 

under 28 U.S.C 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). 

Chew challenges the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry is “limited 

to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and 

* 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.

2

 

 Case: 13-60724 Document: 00512800348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2014
No. 13-60724

therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

On appeal, Chew does not address the reason for dismissal but makes 

the conclusional argument that the district court was biased against him. 

Although pro se pleadings are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order 

to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). In 

view of Chew’s complete failure of his argument to address the reasons for 

dismissal, he has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s application of 

the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel to his current complaints. 

See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Brinkmann 

v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As he 

has abandoned the only possible issues for appeal, Chew’s appeal is without 

arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20. 

Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Further, 

because the appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits, the 

appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5TH 

CIR. R. 42.2. Chew’s motion for the appointment of counsel is also DENIED. 

See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985)

The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal of this appeal count as 

two strikes against Chew. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th 

Cir. 1996). Chew is cautioned that, should he accumulate three strikes, he will 

not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL 

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3

 Case: 13-60724 Document: 00512800348 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2014