### 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 , Defendant s
- Appellee s

___________________________ ___________________________________________ 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, Ward en, 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: 10/10/2014No. 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 case s were consolidated. The district court dismissed the consol idated complaint s 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. S ee Baug h 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 (a nd

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

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

- 60724

therefore not frivolous ).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted). On appeal, Chew does not address the reason for dismissal but makes the conclusional argument that the district court was biased against him.
A lthough pro se pleadings are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 52 0 (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 h as abandone d any challeng e 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,
b ec ause the appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220; 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Chew’s motion for the appointment of counsel is also DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2 d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985)
The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal of this appeal count as
two strike s 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