* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-20120

Conference Calendar

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHARLES A ROSENTHAL JR, District Attorney; HEYWARD CARTER,

Assistant District Attorney

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-491

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Artis Charles Harrell, Texas prisoner # 1334295, filed an in forma

pauperis (IFP) civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harrell sued

Charles A. Rosenthal, Jr., District Attorney for Harris County, Texas, and

Heyward Carter, Assistant District Attorney, for failing to prosecute a criminal

complaint for burglary and criminal trespass. The district court dismissed the

suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20120

Harrell argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.

This court reviews a dismissal as frivolous under § 1915A for abuse of discretion.

Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal for failure to

state a claim under § 1915A is reviewed under the same de novo standard as

dismissals under FED. R. CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054

(5th Cir. 1998). Because the district court found that Harrell’s complaint was

both frivolous and failed to state a claim, review is de novo. See Geiger v.

Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

A prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for any acts taken within the

scope of his prosecutorial role. Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 168

(5th Cir. 1996) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). “A

prosecutor’s absolute immunity will not be stripped because of action that was

in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will

be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction.” Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 337 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds, Castellano

v. Frazogo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003). Rosenthal and Carter acted in their

roles as prosecutors in refusing to proceed based on Harrell’s criminal complaint.

The district court did not err in dismissing Harrell’s suit.

The appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court's dismissal of Harrell’s

complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-

88 (5th Cir. 1996). Harrell has one previous strike. Harrell v. Evans, No. H-06-

0240 (S.D. Tex. May 25, 2006). Because Harrell has now accumulated three

strikes, he is barred from proceeding 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).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.