# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 50410 Summary Calendar

Jammie L. Jones,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

Texas Department of Child Protective Services,

Defendant

— Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:20

- CV

- 307

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Jammie L. Jones, while detained in the Harris County Jail (# 01893875) , filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, alleging that the Texas Department of Child Protective Services violated his constitutional rights by placing his biological child in the custody of a

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 17, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2021No. 20

- 50410

2 guardian without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard and by failing to follow its own rules and regu lations before terminating his parental rights . The district court determined that Jones’s complaint was barred by
the statute of limitations , dismissed the complaint pursuant 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)( B ) for failure to state a cl aim upon which relief may be granted , and denied Jones leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal based on a finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith

. Jones now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for the appointmen t of counsel. By seeking leave to proceed IFP, Jones is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
To obtain IFP status, Jones must demonstrate fina ncial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Although Jones has demonstrated his financial eligibility , see id

. , he ha s not shown a nonfrivolous appellate issue concerning the district

co urt’s dismissal of his complaint , see Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Accordingly, we DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal and
DISMISS Jones’s appeal as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24;
5th Cir. R . 42.2. Jones’s motion for the appointment of counsel is likewise

DENIED

. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock C n ty ., Tex ., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Our dismissal and the district court’s dismissal count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 575 U.S. 532, 534

- 40 (2015). Jones has previously accumulated two strikes.
See Jones v. Gonzale

s , 831 F. App’x 146, 147 (5th Cir. 2020). Jones is thus

BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2021No. 20

- 50410

3 incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 20-50410 Document: 00516018511 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2021