### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40550 Summary Calendar

JOHN CLOUD, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. KISHA STOTTS; JODY HEFNER; TRAVIS MORRIS, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-650

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Cloud, Texas prisoner # 749521, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district c o u rt dismissed Cloud’s civil rights complaint under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), determining that Cloud had not made a showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and certified that, for the same reasons, Cloud’s appeal was not taken in good faith. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 2 9, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40550 Document: 00511709792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2011No. 11-40550

By his motion, Cloud is c h a l l enging the district court’s certification. Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 ( 5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (an d th e refore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th C i r . 1 9 83). His assertion that § 1915(g) is unconstitutional because it seeks to chill a prisoner’s access to the courts is without merit. See Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 199 7). Our review of the cases relied upon b y th e d i s t rict co u rt confirms that Cloud had at least three prior civil rights complaints or appeals di s m i s s ed as f rivolous or for failure to state a claim and, thus, he has three “strikes.” Se e § 1915(g); see also Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); Cloud v. Webb , 54 F. App’x 405 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal as frivolous of civil rights complaint); Cloud v. Webb , 165 F.3d 23 (5th Cir. 1998) (dismissing as frivolous appeal following dismissal as frivolous of civil rights complaint). Cloud does not provide any details of the confronta t ion with or threats made by another inmate allegedly at the behest of one of the defendants. Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Cloud’s bare assertions that he has been threatened at unspecified dates in the past by inmates wh o h av e beaten other inmates at the direction of one of the def e ndants does not rise to the level of a showing that he was in “imminent danger of serious p hy s i c a l injury” when he filed his complaint. See § 1915(g); see also Baños v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Cloud has failed to present a nonfrivo l ous issue regarding the district co u rt’s certificatio n, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DEN IED. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. As the facts surrounding Cloud’s motion to proceed IFP are inextricably intertwined with the merits of this appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F. 3 d a t 2 0 2 & n.24; 5 T H C I R

. R. 42.2. Cloud is CAUTIONED that any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.
2 Case: 11-40550 Document: 00511709792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2011