* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60356

Summary Calendar

MARCO CARROTHERS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DWIGHT PRESLEY, Warden, Area III; JOHN RODGERS, Deputy Warden,

Area III; DARLESTER FOSTER, Associate Warden, Area III; PAMELA

ROBINSON, Director of Offender Services; EMMITT SPARKMAN, Deputy

Commissioner; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner; LAWRENCE KELLY,

Superintendent; ROBERT SCOTT, Case Manager Supervisor; GEORGE

DAVENPORT, Captain, 32 Bravo; TOPPIE SPELLS, Lieutenant, 32 Bravo;

LOLA NELSON, Hearing Officer; MAXINE LYNCH, Case Manager; LATONYA

THOMAS, Case Manager; DIANN WASHINGTON, Correctional Officer

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:06-CV-174

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Carrothers, Mississippi prisoner # 65329, moves this court for

permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of a civil rights

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 28, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60356

2

complaint alleging, inter alia, civil rights violations related to his custodial

classification and his conditions of confinement. The district court denied

Carrothers’s IFP motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good

faith. 

Carrothers’s appellate pleadings address his financial status and assert

that his appeal is not frivolous, but do not identify any error in the district

court’s rejection of his claims, which were addressed on the merits and dismissed

for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Although pro se

briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Carrothers’s

brief does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims, this

court need not address them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Therefore, Carrothers has not shown that the district court erred in

determining that his appeal would be frivolous. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly,

Carrothers’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied and the appeal is

dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Carrothers's complaint and this court’s

dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Carrothers is

cautioned thatif he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will be unable

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. 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.