P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31061 Su m m ar yC al endar
RE DE L L R ED D Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. J A M E S M L E B L A N C , S ecre taryof P u b l i c S a fety an dC orre cti on ; C O N N IE KENN EDY, Re c o r d s Cu s t o d i a n ; DEP UTY W ARDEN S TE VE RADER D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V

- 465
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R e d e l lR e d d , L o u i s i a n a p r i s o n e r#1 2 5 9 8 0 , s e e k s l e a v e t o p r o c e e di n f o r ma pa upe r i s (I F P ) in hi s a ppe alo f t he di s m i s s alo f

hi s c ivilr i ght s c o m pl ai nt p u r s u a n tto 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )(i) a s fr iv o lo u s . I n d i s m i s s in gR e d d ’s com pl ai n t , t h e di st ri ct c ou rtadop t ed the m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s r ecom m en da t i on t hatt he c om pl ai ntbe di sm i ss ed pur suantt o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1915( e) ( 2 )( B ) (i) as barred u n der Heck v. Hu mph rey , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31061

2 The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d Re dd l e av e t o pr o c e e d I FP on ap pe al , c e r t i f yi ng t ha tt he ap p e a lw a s n o tt a ke n i n g o o dfa i t h. Bym o v i ngf o rl e a v e t o p r o c e e dI FP, R e d dis ch a l l e n g in gth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ce r tific a tio n . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 117 F .3 d1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); F ED . R. A PP . P. 2 4 (a ). R edd as se r t s t hatt he di st r i c tc our tfai l ed t o g ive r eas ons as r equi r ed by B augh f o rc e r t i f yi ng t hat hi s a ppe alw as no tt ak e n i n g o o d fai t h. H o w e ve r , t he di st ri ctcou rtstat ed speci f i cal l y t h at i tw as cert i f yi n g t h at R edd ’ s app ealw as not ta k e n in g o o dfa ith “fo rth e re a s o n s s e t fo r th in th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s re p o r t,” an d su ch an in co rporati on by ref erence sat i sf

i es B augh ’ s re q u ir e m e n ts . S ee B augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 n .2 1 . R e d da ls o a s s e r t s t h a t h e n e v e r r e c e iv e d n o t ic e o f th e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s rep or t a n d r eco m m en d a ti on an dtha t he w a s n ot give n the op p ortu n i ty to r e s po nd b e f

o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr e nde r e d it s de c i s i o n. H o w e ve r , b e c aus e t he m agi st ra t e j udge di d notc ons i derany fac t ualdi sput es i n re c om m endi ng t hat R edd ’ s c om pl ai n tbe di sm i ssed as Heck

- barred an d bec a u se the d i st ri ctcourt coul d assess t h e m eri t s of R edd ’ s com pl ai n ton it s face, a n y errorby the di st ri ct c o u r t w a s h a r m le s s . S ee B rax ton v. Este lle , 6 4 1 F .2 d3 9 2 , 3 9 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). R e d dd o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n t h a t h is cla im w as bar r ed by He c k. A c c o r d in g ly , h e h a s a b a n d o n e dth e o n lyis s u e b e fo r e th is c o u r t. S ee H ugh es v. Joh n son , 1 9 1 F .3 d6 0 7 , 6 1 2 -1 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In l i gh tof

t h e f oregoi n g, R edd ’ s m ot i on fai l s t o show error i n t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s c e r t i f

i c at i o n de c i s i o n a nd fai l s t o s ho w t hatRed d wi l lr ai s e ano nf r ivo l o us is s u e o n a p p e a l. Se eHo w ar d v
. Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2d 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). A c c ordi ngl y, R edd’ s m ot i on t o pr oc ee d I FP on appe ali s deni ed, and hi s appeal is d is m is s e d a s fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 & n .2 4 ; 5 T H C IR . R
. 42. 2. Thi s c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a la n dth ed i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f Red d’ s c o m pl ai nt e a c h c o u n t a s s tr ik e s fo rp u r p o s e s o f § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F
. 3d 383 , 387
- 88 (5t h C i r. 1 996 )
. R edd is w arn ed t h at i f he accum u l ates t h ree st ri kes u n der § 191 5( g) , h e w i l l n ot be able t o proceed IFP i n an y civi lact i on orN o. 08- 31061

3 a p p ea l fil ed w h i l e he i s i n ca rcera ted or de tain ed i n a n y fa ci l i ty u n le s s h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). M OT I ON D ENI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; SA NCT I ON WARNI NG I S S UED
.