### REVISED June 13, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30109 Summary Calendar

JAMES COLEMAN , Plaintiff

–

Appellant ,

v ersus LINCOLN PARISH DETENTION CENTER; ANNA RAWSON; JIM TUTEN; R. JOHNSON; CECIL SMITH; DEPUTY WARDEN YELVERTON; CHAPLAIN DENTON; JI M FORDHAM; LIEUTENANT OTWELL; DEPUTY A. QUALLS
Defendant s

– Appellee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
James Coleman, Louisiana prisoner # 214322, appeals the dismiss al of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint , which was filed in forma pauperis ( “ IFP ” ), as United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 24 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30109 Document: 00514031714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2017No. 16

- 30109

2 frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 1 “When a district court dismisses a complaint both as frivolous and as failing to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii), we review the dismissal de novo.” 2
This court affords pro se p leadings liberal con struction. 3 But even for
pro se plaintiffs, such as Coleman, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions

mas querading as factual conclu sions will not suffice” to state a claim for relief. 4 By the time Coleman filed his original complaint, he had been t rans ferred from the Lincoln Parish Detention Center ( “ LPDC ” ) to the Jefferson Par

ish Detention Center

. T hat transfer mooted his claims for declaratory and injunc tive relief under the Religious Land Use and Instituti onalized Persons Act ( “ RLUIPA ” ) , 5 a nd the possibility of his transfer back to the LPDC is too
specu lative to warrant relief

. 6 In addition, RLUIPA does not authorize a private cause of action for compensatory or punitive damages against the appellees in their indi vidual or official capacitie s. 7
As for Coleman’s claim that his rig ht to exercise his religion freely under the First Amendment was violated because he was not allowed to attend Jumu’ah prayer services , he has failed to allege any details regarding the circumstances of the denial of Jumu’ah prayer services ( e.g. , the regulation or policy) that would allow a court to evaluate his claim besides the bare allegation that he was not able to attend

. Thus , the district court did not err

1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1)

. 2 Samford v. Dretke , 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009).

3 Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

4 Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5 Se e Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty

. , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991)

. 6 S ee Herman v. Holiday , 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001 )

. 7 Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex

. , 560 F.3d 316, 329

– 31 (5th Cir. 2009). Case: 16-30109 Document: 00514031714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2017No. 16

- 30109

3 in dismiss ing th at claim

. 8 Coleman’s claims regarding the denial of medical care, negligent or delib

erately indifferent infliction of inj ury, interference with his mail/denial of access to the courts, denial of equal protection, and retaliation were either not briefed at all or not adequately briefed. Thus , they are deemed abandoned. 9 Finally, Coleman never filed a formal mot ion requesting leave to file his proposed third amended complaint , and his “proposed order” accompanying that complaint did not qualify as such a motion because it offer ed no arguments as to why good cause authorized the filing of the complaint. The proposed third amended complaint thus had no legal effect

. 10 As a result , the following per

sons, though named in the proposed third amended complaint and in the caption of thi s appeal , are not parties to this lawsuit: (1) Deputy Warden Yel

ver ton, (2) Chaplain Denton; (3) Jim Fordham; (4) Lieutenant Otwell; (5) Dep

uty A. Qualls; and (6) Jefferson Parish Detention Center. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Coleman’s mo tion for a pro

posed settlement is DENIED.
The dismissal of the complaint count s as a strike under 28 U.S.C.

8 See O’ L one v. Estate of Shabazz , 482 U.S. 342, 351

– 52 (1987).

9 See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating that pro se appel

lants must brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that an appel lant’s failure to address the
mer its of a district court’s decision or to identify any error in its legal analysis was “the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”).

10 See Thomas v. Chevron , 832 F.3d 586, 590

– 91 (5th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a motion for leave to amend must set forth good cause); U nited States ex rel. Mathews v. HealthSouth Corp. , 33 2 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that failure to obtain leave to file an amended complaint when required “results in an amended complaint[’s] hav ing no legal effect”); United States v. Jenkins , 780 F.2d 518, 520 (5th Cir. 1986) (stating that even pro se litigants must comply with relevant procedural rules). Case: 16-30109 Document: 00514031714 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2017No. 16

- 30109

4 § 1915(g). 11 Coleman has at least three other strikes

. 12 As a result, he is BARRED from pro ceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent dang er of serious physical injury. 13

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

– 88 (5th Cir. 1996).

12 (1) Coleman v. Stal der , No. 5:96

- cv - 916 (W.D. La. Mar. 31, 1997) (dismissing the § 1983 complaint as frivolous); (2) Coleman v . Stalder , No. 5:95

- cv - 1380 (W.D. La. June 4, 1996) (dismissing the § 1983 complaint as frivolous); and (3) Coleman v. McMahen , No. 5:92

- cv - 97 (W.D. La. Sept. 24, 1992) (dismissing the § 1983 com plaint for failure to state a claim). See Adepegba , 103 F.3 d at 386 (holding that civil actions that were dismissed before enact

ment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act may count as strikes).

13 See § 1915(g). Case: 16-30109 Document: 00514031714 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/13/2017