Case Name: Abayomi Charles AKOMOLAFE, also known as Charles Abayomi Akomolafe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORNELL CORRECTIONS CORP., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 04-50739
Parties: Abayomi Charles AKOMOLAFE, also known as Charles Abayomi Akomolafe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORNELL CORRECTIONS CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
Abayomi Charles AKOMOLAFE, also known as Charles Abayomi Akomolafe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORNELL CORRECTIONS CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-50739.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Abayomi Charles Akomolafe, Cibola County Correctional Center, Milan, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Denis Carl Dennis, Rush, Kelly, Morgan, Dennis, Corzine & Hansen, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Abayomi Charles Akomolafe, federal prisoner #27712-077, has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on appeal. By moving for IFP, Akomolafe is challenging the district court's certification that an appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). In his IFP motion, Akomolafe argues that Cornell Corrections Corporation is liable for the alleged violations against him. His argument lacks merit because Akomolafe may not bring a Bivens claim against Cornell Corrections Corporation. See Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001).
Akomolafe has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal or that the district court erred in certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the instant motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). We warn Akomolafe that if he accumulates three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.
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.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).