Rolan v. Lasalle Southwest Corr ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10018 Document: 00516419938 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 4, 2022
No. 22-10018
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Steven Rolan,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Lasalle Southwest Corrections; Bryan Gordy,
Administrator Warden; Kris Wusterhausen, Doctor; K. Dykes,
Registered Nurse; NFN Weatherspoon, Ms, Physician Assistant; K.
Flud, LVN,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CV-2842
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Stephen Rolan, Johnson County Jail inmate #201901143, moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10018 Document: 00516419938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
No. 22-10018
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). By moving to proceed IFP,
Rolan challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken
in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our
inquiry “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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Rolan asserts that he should be permitted to proceed IFP because he
is a pauper. Even affording his pleadings very liberal construction, he does
not renew his claims, address the reasons for the district court’s dismissal, or
brief any substantive argument that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue.
He has therefore abandoned any such argument. 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). Because Rolan has failed to identify
any issue of arguable merit, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;
Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see also 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for the
appointment of counsel is also DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982)
The district court’s dismissal of Rolan’s complaint and our dismissal
of his appeal both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman
v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 538-39 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman, 575 U.S.
at 537; see also § 1915(h). Rolan is WARNED that, if he accumulates a third
strike, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
2