IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11259

ALISHIA N. MORRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LUBBOCK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; CHIEF HOWELL, Chief of 

Lubbock County Detention Center; CHIEF SCOTT, Chief of Lubbock County 

Detention Center; SHAWN VANDERGRIFT, Regional Director of Texas 

Department of Family & Protective Services; JACKIE LUCIO-GUERRERO, 

Case Worker for Texas Department of Family & Protective Services; KRISTY 

HOSEK, Owner of Business that Supervises Visits for CPS; GINA DIABOLA, 

Officer at Lubbock County Detention Center; KARLA POPE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CV-236

Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alishia N. Morris, while detained in the Lubbock County Detention 

Center, inmate # 111041, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. The district 

court denied Morris leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and 

 

* 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

September 10, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11259 Document: 00514634743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2018
No. 17-11259

2

certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith because at the time Morris 

filed her notice of appeal the district court had not entered any dispositive or 

otherwise appealable order and she seemed to seek review of state court 

matters. Now, Morris moves this court for leave to proceed IFP in this appeal 

thereby challenging the district court’s certification that her appeal was not 

taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Our inquiry into Morris’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) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

In her IFP motion, Morris does not address the district court’s reasons 

for denying her IFP motion. By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale 

for denying her IFP motion, Morris has abandoned the issue, and it is the same 

as if she had not appealed the district court’s order. See Brinkmann v. Dallas 

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, 

her motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and her appeal is 

dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

Morris’s motion to supplement the record is also denied.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 

1996). In addition, Morris has had multiple civil rights complaints dismissed 

as frivolous. See, e.g., Morris v. City of Lubbock, No. 5:17-cv-00275 (N.D. Tex. 

Apr. 16, 2018); Morris v. City of Lubbock Home Inspectors, No. 5:18-cv-00008 

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2018). Accordingly, as we also advised Morris in Morris v. 

Texas Boys Ranch, No. 18-10120, and Morris v. L.C.D.C., No. 18-10089, she is 

now barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal 

 Case: 17-11259 Document: 00514634743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2018
No. 17-11259

3

filed while she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

 Case: 17-11259 Document: 00514634743 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2018