Case Name: Larry Dinell DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.M. LENSING; Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-19
Citations: 71 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 03-30254
Parties: Larry Dinell DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.M. LENSING; Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Larry Dinell DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.M. LENSING; Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-30254.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 19, 2003.
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Larry Dinell Davis, Louisiana prisoner No. 260148, appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. The district court determined that Davis's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that Louisiana law offers Davis an adequate post-deprivation remedy for his claims of unpaid wages and lost or destroyed property. We find no error in the district court's determination.
Davis's appeal is thus without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous by the district court each count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Davis, therefore, has two "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Davis that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.