Case Name: Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS; Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff; Parkland Memorial Hospital, Board of Directors; Susan Phillips, Vice President, Parkland Memorial Hospital/Jail Health Care Coordinator; Dr. Steven Bowers, Jail Medical Director; University of Texas Medical Branch, Jail Health Care Provider; Kenneth Mayfield, Dallas Commissioner; Edgar L. McMillian Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-13
Citations: 269 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 07-10582
Parties: Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS; Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff; Parkland Memorial Hospital, Board of Directors; Susan Phillips, Vice President, Parkland Memorial Hospital/Jail Health Care Coordinator; Dr. Steven Bowers, Jail Medical Director; University of Texas Medical Branch, Jail Health Care Provider; Kenneth Mayfield, Dallas Commissioner; Edgar L. McMillian Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS; Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff; Parkland Memorial Hospital, Board of Directors; Susan Phillips, Vice President, Parkland Memorial Hospital/Jail Health Care Coordinator; Dr. Steven Bowers, Jail Medical Director; University of Texas Medical Branch, Jail Health Care Provider; Kenneth Mayfield, Dallas Commissioner; Edgar L. McMillian Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-10582
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 13, 2008.
See, also, 2007 WL 1288051.
Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Dallas, TX, pro se.
Peter L. Harlan, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Dallas, DALLAS, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lakeith Amir-Sharif filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for alleged wrongs perpetrated upon him while he was incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. The district court dismissed several of his claims prior to sei-vice upon the defendants and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims. Amir-Sharif now moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his suit. A movant who seeks authorization to proceed IFP on appeal must demonstrate that he is a pauper and that his appeal involves nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).
Amir-Sharif s motion and brief to this court focus exclusively on the district court's determination that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted because Amir-Sharif had failed to properly exhaust his claims. Amir-Sharif has failed to brief, and has thus abandoned, any claims he may have had concerning the propriety of the district court's initial determination that some of his claims should be dismissed prior to service upon the defendants. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9).
Amir-Sharif has likewise failed to brief, and has thus abandoned, the district court's alternate determination that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted because he had failed to show genuine issues of material fact concerning the merits of his claims. Failure to address this alternate determination has the same effect as if Amir-Sharif had not appealed the district court's judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Amir-Sharifs motion to proceed IFP is denied, and this appeal is dismissed as frivolous.
Amir-Sharif has filed numerous frivolous actions in this and other courts. We have warned him that he would likely be sanctioned if this pattern of behavior continued. Amir-Sharif disregarded our warning. We now order him to pay $100 as a sanction to the clerk of this court. Amir-Sharif is barred from filing any civil appeal in this court, unless the district court certifies the appeal is taken in good faith, until the total amount of the sanction is paid. We warn Amir-Sharif that any future frivolous filings may result in additional sanctions.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED; 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.