IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30664

WILLIAM STAMPS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FREDRICK MENIFEE; JOE KEFFER; W. A. SHERROD; RICARDO 

MARTINEZ; M. D. CARVAJAL; GANSBURY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

PIKE; LIEUTENANT FOSTER; REEVES; CASTANEDA; GLADFELTER; 

RICE; DAVIS; SPENCER SMITH; JOEL ALEXANDRE; ANDRE MOLINA; 

CYNTHIA ROBERTS; S. PRICE; VANDASEN; C. PRICE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:15-CV-218

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Stamps, Jr., federal prisoner # 10953-042, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of 

his civil rights claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his complaint and attached 

 

* 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

November 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30664 Document: 00514223594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2017
No. 15-30664

2

exhibits, Stamps alleged various claims based on his conditions of confinement 

and medical care during his incarceration from 2006 to 2013 at the United 

States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana (USP-Pollock).

The district court dismissed Stamps’s complaint for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 

and 1915A. In addition, it adopted the magistrate judge’s denial of Stamps’s 

IFP motion and certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

24(a)(3)(A).

By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Stamps is challenging the 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our 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).

Stamps has not challenged the district court’s dismissal as to his claims 

regarding his cosmetic skin procedure, his medical treatment for a torn leg 

muscle, his treatment with Amoxicillin, or the defendants’ refusal to provide 

him with an EpiPen and a special diet. He has therefore abandoned these 

claims by failing to brief them before this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

As to his claim regarding the conditions of his confinement, Stamps 

argues that the evidence contradicts the district court’s finding that prison 

officials removed the toxic mold detected in USP-Pollock shortly after it was 

detected. His argument on that basis lacks factual merit. His remaining 

arguments regarding this claim and his medical-care claim rest on conclusory 

assertions or speculation and are therefore insufficient to state a valid 

 Case: 15-30664 Document: 00514223594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2017
No. 15-30664

3

constitutional claim. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); 

Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, although he 

contends that the district court erred by failing to construe his objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report as a motion to amend his complaint to include the 

two claims presented to this court, the record shows that such a construal was 

not necessary because the magistrate judge reviewed and rejected those 

claims.

Accordingly, because Stamps has not raised a nonfrivolous issue for 

appeal, his IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal 

of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each counts as a 

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

Cir. 1996). Stamps 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 

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent 

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

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

 Case: 15-30664 Document: 00514223594 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2017