IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10672

Summary Calendar

FREDERIC EMANUEL SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FNU NEW, Federal Case Manager; FNU DUCHENE, Federal Case Manager

Coordinator; R CHANDLER, FCI Warden; G MALDONADO, JR., Regional

Director of the Bureau of Prisons; M MUKASEY, US Attorney General; FNU

DOE, 1 through 10

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CV-168

Before PRADO, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Frederic Emanuel Scott, federal prisoner # 08293-091, moves this court for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s

denial of his petition for writ of mandamus against various prison officials and

the United States Attorney General. Scott alleged that he should be transferred

to a lower-security prison, that his prison security status should be reclassified,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 19, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-10672 Document: 00511177960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2010
No. 09-10672

and that prison officials should correct inaccurate information in his prison file.

The district court dismissed Scott’s petition because he had failed to satisfy the

requirements for mandamus relief.

On appeal, Scott argues that the district court erred in ordering him to pay

two filing fees and reiterates his underlying claims that he is entitled to

mandamus relief.

Scott’s first argument is without arguable merit because the district court

did not order Scott to pay two filing fees. Additionally, regardless of IFP status,

Scott is required to pay the full district court filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1).

Scott’s second argument is likewise without arguable merit. The writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner

establishes “(1) a clear right to the relief, (2) a clear duty by the respondent to

do the act requested, and (3) the lack of any other adequate remedy.” In re

Stone, 118 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997). It is not available to review the

discretionary acts of officials. Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108 (5th

Cir. 1992). A district court’s denial of mandamus relief is reviewed under an

abuse of discretion standard. Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir.

2002).

Scott is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus

because he has not shown that he has a clear right to be transferred to a

different facility and that prison officials have a clear duty to transfer him. In

re Stone, 118 F.3d at 1034. Additionally, because prison classification “is a

matter left to the discretion of prison officials,” Scott is not entitled to mandamus

relief regarding his claim that prison officials should reclassify his prison status.

Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and

citation omitted); Giddings, 979 F.2d at 1108. Finally, Scott is not entitled to

mandamus relief regarding his claim that inaccurate information in his prison

2

Case: 09-10672 Document: 00511177960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2010
No. 09-10672

file should be corrected because he has failed to brief this issue. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Based on all of the foregoing, Scott’s request to proceed IFP should be

denied. His appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it should be dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

This court’s dismissal of the instant appeal and the district court’s

dismissal each count as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Scott is warned that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will be barred from proceeding 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 id.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE STRIKES WARNING

ISSUED.

3

Case: 09-10672 Document: 00511177960 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2010