Brown v. MS Dept Corrections, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60994
Conference Calendar
SHADNEY JERMAINE BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MIKE WILSON, Superintendent; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner;
MISSISSIPPI STATE LEGISLATIVE BOARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:03-CV-394-P-D
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shadney Jermaine Brown, Mississippi prisoner # 82241, has
appealed the district court’s order denying Brown’s application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the ground that
Brown had failed to exhaust state remedies by pursuing relief in
the prison grievance system. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(e). Brown
argues that relief is not available to him under the prison
grievance procedures and that requiring him to exhaust state

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-60994
-2-
remedies would be unavailing. Brown has not shown that the
district court abused its discretion in denying leave to proceed
IFP. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244
(5th Cir. 1975) (standard of review); see also Alexander v.
Tippah County, Miss., 351 F.3d 626, 629–30 (5th Cir. 2003);
Ferrington v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corr., 315 F.3d 529, 531 (5th
Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 206 (2003).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. We caution Brown that the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous counts as a strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --