IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60958

Summary Calendar

BOBBY E. WILSON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; GLORIA GIBBS; ALICIA BOX; JAMES BREWER,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:12-CV-79

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Bobby E. Wilson, Mississippi prisoner # 52274, moves to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed Wilson’s complaint for failure

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and imposed a §

1915(g) strike for the dismissal. The district court also denied Wilson’s IFP

motion, certifying that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 6, 2013

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: 12-60958 Document: 00512333401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2013
No. 12-60958

Wilson challenges the denial of IFP status by arguing that prison procedure in

calculating the term of imprisonment that he served in connection with a 1994

conviction of auto burglary interfered with his constitutional right of access to

the courts. By moving in this court for leave to proceed IFP, Wilson is

challenging the district court’s certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal

points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

The arguments presented by Wilson do not establish that the suit that

forms the basis for his denial of access to the courts claim was a nonfrivolous

legal claim, nor do his arguments indicate that the defendants denied his right

of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Jones v.

Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,the district court did

not err in determining that Wilson failed to state a claim for the denial of

access to the courts, as his claim for relief is not plausible on its face. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Wilson’s appeal is without arguable

merit and therefore is frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20. Because the

appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this

appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g), as does the district

court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See § 1915(g); Adepegba v.

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

accumulates three strikes, he will not be able 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.” See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 12-60958 Document: 00512333401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2013