Nicholson v. McLennan Cty Cmsnr, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50356
Conference Calendar
STEPHEN E. NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MCLENNAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT; LARRY LYNCH, Sheriff;
JOHNNY MYNAR; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, McLennan County Sheriff’s
Department; ROD RYAN, DR.; UNNAMED NURSES; OFFICER WOODSON, also
known as FNU Woodson; SERGEANT WARD, also known as FNU Ward;
CORPORAL BLYTHE, also known as FNU Blythe; UNNAMED OFFICERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CV-120
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stephen E. Nicholson, Texas prisoner # 1126089, seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The
district court denied Nicholson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP
on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-50356
-2-
faith. Nicholson challenges the district court’s certification
decision pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997). Nicholson has not addressed the merits of the district
court’s certification decision. Accordingly, his request for IFP
status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Nicholson is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal
of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count
as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If Nicholson
accrues three strikes, he will not be able to 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).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --