*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40053 

Conference Calendar

 

CURTIS ANTONIO DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:95-CV-300

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Curtis Antonio Davis, Texas prisoner #45831, appeals from

the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Davis

contends that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the

district court did not rule on his amended complaint; that the

assessment of filing fees by the district court pursuant to the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), 
No. 98-40053

-2-

should be taken from funds he earns rather than from gift funds;

and that the district court failed to consider some unspecified

substantive claims. Davis requests an opportunity to file

another brief should we determine that we have jurisdiction over

the appeal.

We construe Davis’s contention that we lack jurisdiction as

a request for the dismissal of his appeal. Davis’s contention

lacks a basis in fact; the district court considered his amended

complaint and his original complaint and issued a final judgment. 

Davis’s request that the appeal be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction is not well-taken and is DENIED.

Davis’s contention regarding the sources of funds for

payment of filing fees is without a basis in law. The relevant

statute makes no provision regarding the source of funds for the

payment of filing fees by prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),(2).

Davis fails to direct us to any failure by the district

court to consider any of his particular claims. He has failed to

brief any such issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We will

not allow Davis to file a new brief to present any such issue

properly.

Davis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We

previously affirmed the dismissal of portions of two previous

civil rights actions by Davis as frivolous. Davis v. Durant, No.

95-40056 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 1995)(unpublished); Davis v. Napper,

No. 93-4087 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 1994)(unpublished). The district
No. 98-40053

-3-

court’s dismissal of the present case and our dismissal of the

appeal constitute strikes three and four against Davis for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Davis has more than three

strikes, he may not bring a civil action or appeal as a prisoner

proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).