Court Opinion

ID: 9554197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 00:00:32.587293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:19.861236
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30806        Document: 00516848847             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

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

                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                           August 7, 2023
                                      No. 22-30806                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   Michael A. James,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Joshua Clark; Jordan Webb; Nathan Harrison; Terrall
   Lockett; Eric David; Thomas Weimer; Leigh Rice; John
   Mistretta; Andrew Palermo; Chris Johnson; J. Hale;
   Unknown Dakota; James Cooper; J. Geen; Jaclyn
   Chapman; Sid J. Gautreaux, III; Unknown Houston DEA
   Agent 1; Unknown Houston DEA Agent 2; Unknown
   Houston DEA Agent 3; Unknown East Baton Rouge
   Sheriff Officer,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-604
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30806        Document: 00516848847          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                      No. 22-30806

            Michael A. James, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights
   complaint, filed as a pretrial detainee, for failure to state a claim for relief.
   The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal
   is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
   1997).
            James fails to address the district court’s reasons for the dismissal of
   his complaint for failure to state a claim. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal
   construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
   Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district
   court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the
   decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
   (5th Cir. 1987).
            Because James has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the
   district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is
   not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See
   id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
   220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is
   DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117
   F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
            The district court’s dismissal of James’s complaint for failure to state
   a claim and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as strikes
   under 28 U.S.C. § 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). James is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he
   will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
   incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
   serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

                                           2