* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11174

Conference Calendar

ALVIN COLEMAN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HARRIS, Lieutenant; DEBORE, Sergeant; K HOGAN, Correctional Officer III;

L LOREN, Correctional Officer III 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CV-158

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvin Coleman, Texas prisoner # 665951, moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The

district court held that Coleman failed to allege facts in support of his claim that

he was the subject of retaliatory disciplinary action and certified that Coleman’s

appeal was not taken in good faith.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11174

2

Our inquiry “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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

If we uphold the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good

faith and the appeal is frivolous, we may dismiss the appeal sua sponte under

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).

Although Coleman contends that,“after [he] filed litigation against prison

officials, [the defendants] retaliated against [him] with false disciplinary

punishment,” he fails to provide specific facts to establish a claim of retaliation

or from which a retaliatory motive may be inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d

1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995); Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir.

1988). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must

brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993). Coleman has not shown that the district court’s certification

that an appeal would not be taken in good faith is incorrect. 

The appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard,

707 F.2d at 219-20. Accordingly, Coleman’s request for leave to proceed IFP is

denied, and his appeal is dismissed. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH Cir.

R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Coleman’s § 1983 suit pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and the dismissal ofthis appeal as frivolous both count as strikes

for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th

Cir. 1996). Coleman has one previous strike. Coleman v. Wortham, No. 5:00-

CV-181-C (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2001), aff’d, 2002 WL 1860327 at *1 (5th Cir. June

18, 2002). Because Coleman has now accumulated three strikes, he is barred

from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.