### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20118 Summary Calendar

KENNETH JUSTICE, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. LOREN JACKSON, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-3661

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Justice, Texas prisoner # 1337192, m oves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in h is appeal from the d istrict court’s dismissal of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3. In his complaint, Justice argued that the D istrict Clerk of Harris County, Texas, v iolated his r i g h t s to investigate and develop his habeas claims, to access the courts, and to petition for a redress of grievances when the Clerk denied Justice’s request f or copies of court records pertaining t o t wo of Justice’s c riminal convictions. He further alleged a denial of due process, and he sought a declaration that § 552.028 of the U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20118 Document: 00512317974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2013No. 12-20118

Texas G overnment Code (the statute c i t e d by the Clerk for denying Justice’s request), as applied, was unconstitutional. The district court m a y deny a motion for l eave to appeal IFP by certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and by providing written reasons for the certificatio n . S e e Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 24(a). If a p risoner opts to challenge the district court’s certification decision, the p r i s o n e r may file a motion i n the court of appeals for leave to proceed I FP, w hich “must be directed s olely to the t rial court’s reasons for the certification decision.” See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202. Justice’s complaint was dismissed because his c l aims were legally frivolous, b ut he fai l s t o address or challenge the r e asons given by the district court for di s m i s s i n g his complaint. Al t h ough pro se b riefs are afforded liberal constructio n , Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 5 20 (1972), even pro s e l itigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. C ollins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By f ailing to b rief an a rgument challenging the basis of the district court’s d ismissal of his com p l a i n t , J u stice has waived any such challenge on appeal. See id. ; B rinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 7 48 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous was an abuse o f discretion. See Berry v. Brady , 192 F .3 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 7 ( 5th Cir. 1999). His motion i s therefore DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED AS F R I VOLOUS. See 5 T H C I R

. R. 42.2. We WARN Justice that the d ismissal o f his suit by the district court and the d ismissal of this appeal c ount as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We f urther warn him that if he accumulates t h ree strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP i n a ny civil action or appeal f iled while h e is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent d anger o f s e rious physical injury. See§ 1915(g).

2 Case: 12-20118 Document: 00512317974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2013