Case Name: Kenneth Wayne MENARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy L. EVANS; Sergeant April Jenkins, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 433 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 11-40166
Parties: Kenneth Wayne MENARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy L. EVANS; Sergeant April Jenkins, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Kenneth Wayne MENARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy L. EVANS; Sergeant April Jenkins, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-40166
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 15, 2011.
Kenneth Wayne Menard, New Boston, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Menard, Texas prisoner # 724683, seeks to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged that he was subjected to a visual body cavity search in the presence of female prison employees in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint both as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Accordingly, our review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).
The invasion of privacy that Menard alleged was no greater than this court has previously held to be constitutional. See Letcher v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir.1992); Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 190-92 (5th Cir.1994); Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 747 (5th Cir.2002). Menard's appeal is without arguable merit, and we dismiss it as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of the complaint by the district court as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and the dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Menard garnered a strike in Menard v. Wagner, No. 3:09-CV-8 (S.D.Tex. Mar. 2, 2011). Accordingly, he has three strikes and is now barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis 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).
Menard has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Because this matter is not particularly complex, and Menard has shown an ability to prepare a cogent brief and cite relevant facts and law, the motion is DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985).
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.