Case Name: Christopher JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAMOS, Lieutenant, Smith Unit; V.R. Ramirez, Correctional Officer, Smith Unit; Davis, Captain, Smith Unit; Fondren, Assistant Warden, Smith Unit; Gentry, Major, Smith Unit; Garza, Captain, Smith Unit; C.C. Bell, Warden; Jamie Baker, Assistant Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-03
Citations: 234 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 06-10651
Parties: Christopher JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAMOS, Lieutenant, Smith Unit; V.R. Ramirez, Correctional Officer, Smith Unit; Davis, Captain, Smith Unit; Fondren, Assistant Warden, Smith Unit; Gentry, Major, Smith Unit; Garza, Captain, Smith Unit; C.C. Bell, Warden; Jamie Baker, Assistant Regional Director, Defendants-Appel-lees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Christopher JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAMOS, Lieutenant, Smith Unit; V.R. Ramirez, Correctional Officer, Smith Unit; Davis, Captain, Smith Unit; Fondren, Assistant Warden, Smith Unit; Gentry, Major, Smith Unit; Garza, Captain, Smith Unit; C.C. Bell, Warden; Jamie Baker, Assistant Regional Director, Defendants-Appel-lees.
No. 06-10651
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 3, 2007.
Christopher Jones, Lamesa, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Jones, Texas prisoner # 656546, appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of his complaint purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241. We review the district court's dismissal for abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997).
Jones contends that numerous employees at the prison facility engaged in a conspiracy against him for filing inmate grievances. Jones sought relief under a criminal statute. See § 241; United States v. Bigham, 812 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir.1987). The decision whether or not to bring criminal charges rests solely with the prosecutor. See Bigham, 812 F.2d at 945; United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1462 (5th Cir.1992); see also Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir.1990). Accordingly, Jones has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims against the defendants as frivolous. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193.
Jones's appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court's dismissal of Jones's complaint as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Jones is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION 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.