Court Opinion

ID: 9369199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 01:00:23.131701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.472001
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60503        Document: 00516637805             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-60503                             February 7, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Bryan Kerr Dickson,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General; William Barr,
   Attorney General of the United States; Colette S. Peters, Director of the
   Federal Bureau of Prisons; Hugh Horwitz, Director of the Federal Bureau
   of Prisons; Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director of the Bureau of Prisons;
   Et al.

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:20-CV-735
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Bryan Kerr Dickson, federal prisoner # 39172-177, has filed a motion
   to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his
   civil rights complaint. Dickson’s IFP motion challenges the district court’s

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60503      Document: 00516637805           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                     No. 22-60503

   determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the
   appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal
   points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
          The district court dismissed Dickson’s civil action without prejudice
   on grounds that Dickson had failed to comply with court orders and had failed
   to prosecute his action. In his IFP motion and incorporated brief, Dickson
   argues only that he has been allowed to procced IFP in other cases and that
   he has not accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); thus, he
   asserts that he should be allowed to proceed IFP in the instant matter.
   Because Dickson fails to brief a challenge to the district court’s reasons for
   dismissing his civil rights action, the relevant issues are abandoned. See Yohey
   v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
   Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Dickson fails to make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous
   issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion to
   proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under
   § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996),
   abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537
   (2015). As discussed by the district court, Dickson has two previous strikes.
   He incurred his first strike as the result of consolidated civil actions filed in
   the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which
   dismissed his claims as frivolous or malicious and for failure to state a claim.
   Dickson v. City of Mansfield, Tex., No. 4:11-cv-469 c/w No. 4:11-cv-499 (N.D.
   Tex. Apr. 9, 2012). A portion of that civil action was transferred to the

                                          2
Case: 22-60503      Document: 00516637805            Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                      No. 22-60503

   United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, which
   dismissed the action because Dickson failed to state a claim on which relief
   could be granted. Dickson v. Warden, FTC, No. 5:12-cv-384 (W.D. Okla. May
   15, 2012). Dickson accrued another strike as the result of the dismissal, as
   frivolous, of his appeal of a civil rights action in the Ninth Circuit. See Dickson
   v. United States, No. 16-56864 (9th Cir. July 26, 2017).
          Because he has now accumulated at least three strikes, Dickson is
   BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
   incarcerated or detained unless he is under imminent danger of serious
   physical injury. See § 1915(g); McGarrah v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 585 (5th
   Cir. 2015).

                                           3