* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court ha s determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20637

Summary Calendar

GREGORY LYNN SCERCY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-4339

-----------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20641

Summary Calendar

GREGORY LYNN SCERCY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-1547

June 29, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 Gregory Lynn Scercy, Texas i nmate #458066, presents two

appeals and a motion for reinstatement of a third appeal.

In No. 99-20637, Scercy appeals the district court's denial of

his injunctive relief and to compel discovery in his civil rights

suit against the Texas Board of Criminal Justice. Scercy filed

motions for protective orders and to compel discovery. The

district court construed the former as a request for injunctive

relief, denyi ng the request for failure to make the required

showing of irreparable harm. The court denied the motion to compel

discovery because the defendants had not been served and discovery

was premature.

In No. 99-20641, Scercy appeals the district court's dismissal

without prejudice of his civil rights claim against the State of

Louisiana and a New Orleans police officer over events that

allegedly occurred i n 1976. The district court dismissed his

complaint because it was filed in the wrong forum, and the court

did not transfer the case to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louis iana because it determined that the

one-year statute of limitations under L ouisiana law had clearly

expired.

In addition to the briefs Scercy filed in these appeals, he

has filed numerous other documents that we construe as motions to

file supplemental briefs. We GRANT these motions and consider

those supplemental briefs in these consolidated appeals.3

The briefs Scercy has filed address a variety of his concerns

but fail to argue that there was error by either district court in

either case. An appellant's brief must contain his contentions and

supporting reasons. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). We liberally

constru e the filings of pro se appellants, but these must

nevertheless brief issues to preserve them for appeal. See Grant

v. Cuellar

, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Scercy has preserved

no issue for appeal.

Nei ther appeal has arguable merit, and we DISMISS these

consolidated appeals as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Scercy had two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in

Scercy v. Collins , No. 98-41548 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 1999). Scercy

now has three strikes under § 1915(g), so he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury.

The appeal in No. 99-20937 sought review of the denial of his

motion to proceed under § 2255, which Scercy presented during the

proceedings in his civil rights case against the Texas Board of

Criminal Justice, No. 99-20637. The appeal in No. 99-20937 was

dismissed for failure to pay the docketing fee, and that defect has

not been cured by paying the fee or by filing a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. Scercy's motion to reinstate the appeal

in No. 99-20937 is DENIED.4

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTION

IMPOSED; MOTIONS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BR IEFS GRANTED; MOTION TO

REINSTATE APPEAL DENIED; ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.