* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 95-50570

Summary Calendar

______________

DAVID KIKTA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. HERNANDEZ, DR.; ALLEN STEMSRUD; JOE LOPEZZ;

EDWARD SERVIDER, LT.; SIMMONS, CPL.;

WILLIAM MCTIQUE, CPL.; LEO SAMANIEGO; SHERIFF;

KAMINSKI, SGT.; DORADO, CPL.; LVN ROSE;

LVN MARIA; ROWEN, SGT.; A. FERNANDEZ, LT.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-93-CV-2323

_________________________________________________________________

February 7, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Plaintiff-Appellant David Kikta ("Kikta") appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil right complaint under F ED

.

R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kikta argues that

Defendants-Appellees denied him due process, equal protection, and

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical ne eds for

requiring him to sign a form agreeing to return eyeglasses upon his

release from the El Paso County Detention Facility. He also argues2

that the district court should have appointed counsel for him. We

h ave reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

perceive no reversible error. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

Kikta's claim r elating to this separation from general

population is not reviewed for failure to adequately brief. S ee

Grant v. Cuellar

, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995). His claims of

overcrowding, inadequate ventilation system and food service,

denial of access to the courts, and retaliation for filing

grievances are also not considered based on Kikta's attempt to

incorporate his district court pleadings rather than briefing the

issues in his appellate brief. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222,

225 (5th Cir. 1993).

We have reviewed Kikta's remaining claims, which he contends

constitute due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment

violations. We find, for the reasons set forth in the district

court's July 7, 1995 order, that the district court correctly

dismissed Kikta's claims.

Additionally, we find that the d istrict court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Kikta's request for counsel, see Neal v.

Stringer

, No. 94-60152 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 1995) (unpublished), and

we deny Kikta's request for counsel on appeal. Thus, we hold that

Kikta's appeal is frivol ous and dismiss his appeal accordingly.

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Kikta has had a previous appeal dismissed as frivolous, and he

has been previously sanctioned for abusing the rehearing

procedures. S ee Kikta v. Maruasti

, No. 94-50527 (5th Cir. Jan. 26,3

1995) (unpublished) and Kikta v. Maruasti

, No. 93-8485 (5 th Cir.

Feb. 17, 1994) (unpublished). We caution Kikta that any additional

frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposi tion of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Kikta is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that ar e frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this Court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.