P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60444 C onfer enc e Cal endar

DON AL D M CART HU R J ONES Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. JEA N K I RK W O O D ; R O N A L D K ING ; CH RI STO PH ER B E PPS, CO M M I S S I ONE R, MI S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M ENT OFC OR RE CT I ONS 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 o rt he So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V
- 109 B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n dJ O L LYa n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * D o nal d M cArt hurJ o ne s , f o r m e rM i s s i s s i ppipr i s o ne r# K 32 02 , has f i l e d a m ot i on f

orl eavet o pr oc ee d i n f or m a pauper i s ( I FP ) on appealf r om t he di sm i ss al o f hi s 42 U . S. C. § 198 3 c o m pl ai nt . By m o vi ng f o rI FP, J o ne s i s c hall e ngi ng t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ce r tific a tio n th a t h is a p p e a l w a s n o t t a k e n ing o o dfa i t h . S ee United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60444

2 B augh v. T

aylor , 11 7 F . 3 d19 7 , 20 2 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 7 ). T h i s cou rt’ s i n q u i ryi n to J on es’s g o o d fa i th “i s l i m i tedto w h eth er th e a p p ea li n vo lve s ‘ l eg a lpo i n ts a rg u a b l e on the i r m erits (an dthe refore n ot f rivo l ou s). ’” Ho wa r d v . Ki ng , 707 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d). B e c a u s e J o n e s ’s b r ie f d o e s n o t a d d r e s s t h e r e a s o n s fo r t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s c er t i f i c at i on dec i si on o rt he bas i s of t he di st r i c tcour t ’ s di sm i ss al , i ti s t he s am e a s if h e h a dn o t a p p e a le dth e ju d g m e n t. S eeB rin k m a n n v . D a lla s Co u n ty D epu ty S h erif

f A bn er , 813 F . 2d744 , 7 4 8 (5 th C i r. 198 7) . Jones h as not d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h e w ill r a is e a n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e o n a p p e a l. S ee How ard , 707 F . 2 dat 21 9 -20 . A ccord i n gly, J on es’ s m oti on to pro cee dIF P is d e n ie d . S ee B augh , 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 2 0 2 n .2 4 . B e c a u s e h is a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , seeHow ard , 707 F .2 da t 2 1 9 -2 0 , h is a p p e a l is d is m is s e d . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. Jones’ s m ot i on f or p r e p a r a tio n o f th e tr a n s c r ip t a tg o v e r n m e n t e x p e n s e is d e n ie d . S ee2 8 U. S . C. § 7 5 3 (f); Harvey v. A n d ri st , 7 5 4 F .2 d5 6 9 , 5 7 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T h e di sm i ssalof

t h i s app eala s f

rivol ou s cou n t s as a st rike f or purp oses of 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F . 3d383 , 387
- 88 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). J o n e s h a s o n e p r io rs tr ik e . S ee Jo n es v. S m ith , 23 4 F . A p p ’ x 2 4 9 , 25 0 ( 5 th C i r. 200 7) . W e cau t i on Jon es t h at on ce h e accum u l ates t h ree st rikes, h e m ay n ot proceed IFP in an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated or det ai ned i n any fac i l i t y u nl es s he “ i s und eri m m i nentdangerof s er i ous physi c al inju ry .” § 1 9 1 5 (g). M OT I ONS DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON W AR NI NG I S S UED .