Opinion ID: 68175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Frivolousness of Martinez’s Appeal

Text: Because of the potential for a filing bar under 28 U.S.C. §1915, the final question before the court is whether Martinez’s appeal is frivolous. In this circuit, “[a]n appeal is frivolous if the result is obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 4 No. 08-10946 1988); see also Ozee v. Am. Council on Gift Annuities, Inc., 110 F.3d 1082, 1097 (5th Cir. 1997) (“In this circuit, a frivolous appeal is either one that pursues legal points not arguable on the merits or one in which the result is obvious.”), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 522 U.S. 1011 (1997). This court has stated that an appeal is “frivolous [when] . . . the result is obvious from the [district court’s correct,] comprehensive and decisive exposition of the law.” Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 810. The district court’s opinion below correctly analyzed the relevant statute and case law regarding exhaustion, and its exposition of the law made it clear that Martinez’s suit had to be dismissed because of his failure to exhaust. Because the district court was clear on this point of law, it should have been obvious to Martinez that this court would also dismiss his suit because of his failure to exhaust if he did not set forth any cogent reason that the district court’s determination was incorrect. Since Martinez’s appeal was “taken ‘in the face of clear, unambiguous, dispositive holdings of this’” court, his appeal must be deemed frivolous.3 Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 811. Because Martinez’s appeal is frivolous, it counts as Martinez’s third strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).4 Because Martinez has collected three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is now barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any 3 Martinez’s appeal might have had some merit if he had raised and adequately briefed a defense to his failure to exhaust. See Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2001) (stating 42 U.S.C. § 1997e’s “exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and may be subject to certain defenses such as waiver, estoppel or equitable tolling”). Martinez, however, failed to do so, and because of his failure, he abandoned any such defenses. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225 (stating that “arguments must be briefed to be preserved”). 4 Martinez received his first strike from this court in Martinez v. Tex. Dep’t Corr., 235 F. App’x 335, 335 (5th Cir. 2007). Martinez received his second and third strike in this case, one for the original dismissal and one for the frivolous appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (stating that a strike is to be given when a court dismisses a suit for failure to “state a claim upon which relief may be granted”); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996) (counting as two strikes this court’s affirmation of a district court’s dismissal and this court’s dismissal of the subsequent appeal as frivolous). 5 No. 08-10946 civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.