IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20262

MAURICE MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANGELA R. HENDERSON; GRIEVANCE 

COORDINATOR A. GUIDRY; LAW LIBRARY SUPERVISOR REGIS C. 

RAYME; SENIOR WARDEN BRENDA CHANEY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-192

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maurice Mitchell, Texas prisoner # 648121, 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. Mitchell’s IFP motion is a challenge to 

the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20262 Document: 00512475938 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2013
No. 13-20262

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into 

whether the appeal is taken in 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) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

A liberal construction of Mitchell’s brief reveals that he asserts that the 

dismissal of his complaint as frivolous was error, urging that the district court 

made inappropriate factual determinations and legal conclusions. He also 

conclusionally asserts that the district court was biased against him, but his 

conclusional assertion, based on the court’s adverse ruling, is insufficient to 

demonstrate bias on the district court’s part. See Liteky v. United States, 510 

U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

Although Mitchell broadly references his denial-of-access and retaliation 

claims, he fails to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reasons 

for dismissing those claims as frivolous. He has thus abandoned any such 

challenge. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). Accordingly, the instant appeal is without arguable merit and is 

frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20. The IFP motion is denied, and the 

appeal is dismissed. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

Both the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and our 

dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as “strikes” for purposes of the “three 

strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Mitchell is warned that if he accumulates three 

strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or 

appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained 

2

 Case: 13-20262 Document: 00512475938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2013
No. 13-20262

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

3

 Case: 13-20262 Document: 00512475938 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2013