Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30988 Su m m ar yC al endar CL EV ELAND F ER GUS ON , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. BU RL CA I N , W AR D EN , LO U I SI AN A STA TE PEN I TE N TI AR Y; TRI SH F O S T E R , L egal P rogram s D i rect or , 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
- 537 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C l ev elan dF erg u son , L ou i sia n a p ri son er #19 3 3 2 1 , m ov es th i s cou rt t o pro c ee d i n f

or m a pauper i s ( I FP ) i n t hi s appealf r om the di st r i c tcour t ’ s di sm i ss al o f h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r td is m is s e dF e r g u s o n ’s com pl ai n tbased on a fin d in gth at t h e defen da n t s w ere entit l ed to qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y an d F erguson fai l ed t o stat e a cl ai m forrel i ef. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so deni ed Fer guso n’ s r eques tto proc ee d IFP on appeal , c er t i f yi ng t hatt he appea l United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April1, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30988 Document: 00511068248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2010N o. 09- 30988

2 w as not t ak en i n good fai t h . F erguson ’ s IFP m ot i on i s a cha l l en ge t o t h e di st ri ct c o u r t’s ce r t i f

i c a tio n th a t h is a p p e a l is n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith . S ee B augh v. T aylor , 1 1 7 F .3d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). F e r g u s o n d o e s n o t a d d r e s s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s re a s o n s fo rd is m is s in gh is § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t . B e c a u s e h e fa il s to id e n t if ya n ye r r o rin th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s a n a ly s is , a n y a r g u m e n t is a b a n d o n e d . S eeB rin k m a n n v . D a lla s Co u n ty D ep u ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). F erguson ha s not show n t h at he w i l lpresent a non f rivol ou s i ssue on a p p e a l. Se eHo w ar d v . Ki ng , 70 7 F. 2d 21 5, 22 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 3) . Ac c o r di ngly, t he m ot i on f

orl eave t o pr oc ee d I F P is deni ed and t he appea li s di sm i ss ed as fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 n .2 4 ; 5 TH C IR . R . 42. 2. Th e di sm i ss alof

t hi s appealas fri vo l ous c ount s as one s t r i ke under28 U . S . C . § 1915 ( g) . Fergu son is c a u tioned t h at if he accum u l ates t h ree s t ri kes und er§ 1915( g) , he w i l lnotbe abl e t o pr oc ee d I FP i n any c ivi lac t i on o rappeal f i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated o r d e tai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e i s un der im 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). I F P M OT I ON DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED . Case: 09-30988 Document: 00511068248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2010