Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and 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- 30116 Su m m ar yC al endar G RE G O RYD O N SEA RL S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. CORRECT I ONS CORP ORAT I ON OF AM ERI CA; W I NN CORRE CT I ONAL CE N TE R; TI M O TH Y W I LK I N SO N ; KAT H Y R I CH AR D SO N ; PAT TH O M AS; D R . PA C H E C O , 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 W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V
- 889 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 IA M: * G regory D o n S earl s, L ou i si an a pri soner # 119 196 , ha s f i l ed a m ot i on f

or l eave to p ro ce ed i n f orm a pa u peri s (IFP ) on ap pea l . Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed Se ar l s ’ s I FP m o t i o n a nd c e r t i f i e d t hatt he a ppealw as n o tt ak e n i n g o o d fait h. By m o vi ng f

o rI FP s t at us , Se ar l s i s c hall e ngi ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c e r t i f i c at i o n. 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 ). 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. 09- 30116

2 A si de f rom con cl u si on ala l l egati on s, S earl s d oes n otch al l en ge t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hat he fail e d t o pr e s e nt an ar gua bl e o rno nf r ivo l o us i s s ue f or app eal . Fu rt h er, Sea rl s does not cha l l en ge t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on th a t his 42 U . S . C . § 19 8 3 action i s m oo t no r d oe s h e p rov i d e s u ffic ie n t fa cts to sup port h i s E igh th A m en dm en tcl ai m againstal lt h e defen da n t s. Th eref ore, th e s e is s u e s a r e d e e m e da 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 ). S ea rl s h a s n ot sh ow n tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s certif i ca ti on w a s i n corre ct. Th e i nst antappeali s w i t houtar guabl e m er i tand i s t hus f r ivol ous . Acc or di ngl y, S e a r ls ’ s IF P m o tio n is d e n ie d , a n dh is a p p e a l is d is m is s e da s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ); 5 THC IR . R . 42. 2. Th e di sm i ss alof

t hi s appeala s frivol ous c ount s as one s t r i ke under28 U . S. C. § 1 91 5( g) . Se ar l s pr e vi o us l y ac c um ul at e d t w o s t r i ke s f o rf i l i ng f r ivo l o us § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s . S ee Se ar ls v . Lo ui s i ana , N o. 2: 08-c v- 040 50-JC Z ( E . D . L a. M ar. 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 ); S earls v. L ee , N o . 2 :0 3 -c v -0 1 0 0 1 -M L (E .D . L a . A p r . 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 ). S e a r ls i s now barred f

rom pro ce e d in gI F P pu rsuan tt o § 1915 i n an y civi lact i on or a p p e a l file dw h ile h e is in c a r c e r a te do rd e ta in e din a n yfa c i l i t yu 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 OTI ON D ENI ED; AP PE AL DI S M I S S ED; 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( g) BAR I M P OS ED .