Case Name: Conchita WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lucy MALLISHAM, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell; Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-06
Citations: 91 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 03-11158
Parties: Conchita WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lucy MALLISHAM, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell; Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
Conchita WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lucy MALLISHAM, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell; Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-11158.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 6, 2004.
Conchita Washington, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Conchita Washington, federal prisoner # 14826-039, appeals from the district court's dismissal of her civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and as frivolous. Washington argues that Program Statement 1351.05, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, violates the Federal Register Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Due Process Clause. As her arguments fail to raise a cognizable issue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the dismissal of her instant complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted was proper. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir.1998).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and our affirmance of that dismissal as frivolous counts as a second strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Washington is warned that if she accumulates three strikes, she may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; 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.