# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 23

- 40627

**____________ Tad Taylor,** 

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Marcia A. Crone,** United States Judge **; Steven Buys,** Assistant United States Attorney **; Hornok,** Assistant United States Attorney **; United States of America,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22

- CV

- 79

**______________________________**
Before **Clement, Engelhardt,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****

Tad Taylor , federal prisoner # 26966

- 078 , moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of his
civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Taylor’s IFP motion constitutes a challenge to the district cour t ’ s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997) ;

**_____________________**

* This op inion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 17, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40627 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024No. 23

- 40627

2 see also **Fed. R. App. P.** 24(a). The inquiry into an IFP movant’s good faith is “limited to whether the appeal involves ‘ legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous). ’ ” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
In his IFP motion, Taylo r makes claims of corruption and perjury similar to those that he raised in his amended complaint . He does not address
the district court’s determinations regarding exhaustion, sovereign immunity, and the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction , nor d oes he acknowledge or challenge the substitution of the United States as the sole defendant. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to the basis for the
district court’s decision. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Taylor fails to show that his appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue, his motion to proceed IFP is **DENIED** , and the appeal is
**DISMISSED** as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n .24 ; Howard , 707 F.2d at 220; **5th Cir. R. 42.2.**

Our dismissal of this appeal count s as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 575 U.S. 532,

535

- 39 (2015). Taylor now has two strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Taylor v. Kendall Law Grp ., P.L.L.C. , No. 21

- 10280, 2021 WL 6102485 , at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2021) (unpublished). Taylor is **WARNED** that if he
accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Case: 23-40627 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2024