Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50891 Su m m ar yC al endar J EFFREY T POPP , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant v. M CL ENNAN COUNTY S HERI FF ' S DEP ART M ENT; AGRI PL EX TASK FORC E; J UDG E GEORGE AL LE N; M CL ENNAN COUN TY D. A. ' S O FF I CE; S C OT T P E T E R S ON ; C HA R L E S MC DO NA L D; KAYS MI T H, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V - 332 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J e f f r e yT . P o p p mo v e s t h i s c o u r tf o ra u t h o r i z a t i o n t o p r o c e e di n f o r ma p a u p e r i s (I FP ) i n t h i s a p p e a lf r o m t h e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a lo f h i s 4 2 U. S . C. § 198 3 com pl ai n t as f rivol ou s an d f

or fai l u re t o st ate a cl ai m . T h e di st ri ctcourt di sm i ss ed Popp’ s c om pl ai ntas bar r ed by Heck v. Hu mph rey , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (19 9 4 ), as t o d efen da n t s M cL en n an C ou n t y S h erif f ’ s D epa rt m en t , A gri pl ex T ask F orce, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 19, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50891 Document: 00511115552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 50891

2 M c l ennan C ount y D . A . ’ s O f f i c e, Sco t tPet er so n, C harl es M c D onal d, and K ay S m i th . T h e di st ri ctcourtf u rt h er det erm i n ed that j u di ci ali m m u n i t y barred P o p p ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tT e x a s J u d g e G e o r g e A l l e n a n di td i s mi s s e dt h o s e c l a i ms as w e l l . The di st ri ctco ur tde ni e d Po pp l e av e t o pr o c e e d I FP on ap pe ala nd c e r t i f i e d t hathi s a ppe alw as no tt ak e n i n g o o d fait h f o rt he re as o ns st at e d i n t he o r ig in a l d is m is s a l. P o p p ’s I F P m o t io n is ac h a ll e n g e to th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s c e r tific a tio n th a t h is a p p e a l is n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ); Jackson v. Joh n son , 475 F . 3d 261 , 267 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). Popp do es not addre ss t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s r eas ons f ordi sm i ss i ng hi s § 1 983 com pl ai n t . B ecau se he fai l s t o i den t i f y an y error i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s ana l ysi s, a n ya r g u m e n tis a b a n d o n e d . S eeB rin k m a n n v. D a lla s Co u n ty D ep u ty S h er iff A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). P o p p h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h e w ill p r e s e n t a n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e o n a p p e a l. Se eHo w ar d v . Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 3) . Ac c o r di ngly, t he m o t i o n f o rl e av e t o pr o c e e d I FP i s de ni e d a nd th e a p p e a l is d is m is s e da s fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 n .2 4 ; 5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. T h e d i sm i ssa lof th e i n i ti a lco m p l a i n t a s f rivo l ou s an df

or fail u re to state a c l ai m a nd t he di s m i s s alo f t hi s a ppe ala s f

r ivo l ou s each c o unta s o ne s t r i ke u n der 28 U . S . C . § 1915 ( g) . Pop p i s c au t i on ed that if he accum u l ates t h ree st ri kes u n der § 1915 ( g) , he w i l lnot be abl e t o p roceed IF P in a n y civi la ct i on or a p p e a l fi l e d w h i l e h e is in c a r c e r a te do rd e ta in e din a n yfa c ilityu n le s s h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee § 1 9 1 5 (g). I F P MOTI ON DENI ED ; AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; SA NCT I ON WARNI NG I S S UED . Case: 09-50891 Document: 00511115552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2010