Case Name: Milton K. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam TOWERY; Warden Huff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 176 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 05-30865
Parties: Milton K. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam TOWERY; Warden Huff, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 557–559

Head Matter:
Milton K. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam TOWERY; Warden Huff, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-30865.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 17, 2006.
Milton K. Riley, Kinder, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Eddie David Gilmer, Assistant Attorney General, Shreveport, LA, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Milton Riley, Louisiana prisoner number 108262, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for alleged acts of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in relation to his job assignments. The district court dismissed his suit and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith. Riley challenges the district court's certification decision pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997), and requests that this court grant him authorization to proceed IFP on appeal.
Riley maintains that he is disabled and that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by permitting him to be assigned to field work. The record evidence refutes this contention and supports the district court's dismissal of Riley's suit. See Resident Council v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir.1993); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir.1989). The record evidence also refutes Riley's contention that the district court erred by relying on the affidavits submitted by defendant Huff. Riley's contention that the district court errone ously dismissed his claims against defendant Towery lacks merit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
Riley has failed to show that his appeal involves "legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous)." Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, his motion for authorization to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24.
The dismissal of Riley's appeal as frivolous by this court counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Riley is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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).
MOTION DENIED; 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.