Tucker v. Katz, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 30, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50114
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL ERVIN TUCKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAM KATZ; J. FERNANDO TREVINO;
MANUEL ALFARO, II; JEFFERSON MOORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CV-941-EP
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Ervin Tucker, Texas inmate #072321, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous. Tucker does not address the district court’s reasons
for its certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Tucker states in conclusional fashion that the district court
ignored federal law, Supreme Court decisions, and acts of

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50114
-2-
Congress, that he filed a legally and factually sufficient
complaint, and that he has effectively refuted any suggestion
that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Tucker provides no
statement or discussion of the issues he intends to raise on
appeal, nor does he challenge the district court’s dismissal of
his complaint. Because Tucker does not provide any analysis of
the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint, he
waives any appeal of it. United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555,
558 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002).
Tucker has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and
his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal of Tucker’s complaint as frivolous count as strikes
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Tucker is WARNED that if he
accumulates three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will
not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED, SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --