IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50926

Summary Calendar

CASTANEDA CUTBERTO CARRENO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFREY LNU, Senior Warden; WARDEN FNU BARBOSA, Assistant Warden;

SERGEANT FNU GONZALEZ, G.I.; JOHN B. CONNALLY UNIT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:10-CV-462

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Cutberto Carreno Castaneda, Texas prisoner # 857042, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged that officials at

the John B. Connally Unit, where he is currently incarcerated, had committed

numerous constitutional violations. In addition to holding that the majority of

Castaneda’s claims were factually frivolous, the district court concluded that

Castaneda’s challenge to the validity of his conviction and his allegation that he

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 27, 2011

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: 10-50926 Document: 00511457902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2011
No. 10-50926

was falsely disciplined were not yet cognizable because he had not met the

requirements under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The

district court further concluded that the remainder of Castaneda’s constitutional

complaints, some of which extended back to 2000, were barred by the applicable

statute of limitations.

We need not consider Castaneda’s assertion that officials have engaged in

a campaign of retaliation since he filed this appeal because we generally do not

address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Stewart Glass

& Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir.

2000) (“It is a bedrock principle of appellate review that claims raised for the

first time on appeal will not be considered.”). Moreover, Castaneda does not

address the district court’s conclusion that his claims were barred pursuant to

either Heck or the applicable statute of limitations. Because Castaneda has

failed to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is as if he had not

appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 case); see also United States v.

Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 1986) (direct criminal appeal) (determining

that a party who “offered only a bare listing of alleged errors without citing

supporting authorities or references to the record” abandoned those claims on

appeal).

Castaneda is warned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as

frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). He previously received a strike

under § 1915. See Castaneda v. Nunoz, et. al., No. SA-09-CA-556-FB (W.D. Tex.

September 17, 2009). Castaneda is cautioned that he has now accumulated two

strikes, and if he accumulates a third strike, he will no longer be allowed to

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or

incarcerated in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

Case: 10-50926 Document: 00511457902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2011