Jackson v. Bickham ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30337 Document: 00516996732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30337
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 11, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Reginald Jackson, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
E. Dustin Bickham, Warden; Daniel LaFleur; Laura Allen;
John Doe,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:22-CV-1037
______________________________
Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Reginald Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 764746, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil
rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief. The
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30337 Document: 00516996732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2023
No. 23-30337
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).
Jackson fails to address the district court’s reasons for the dismissal of
his complaint as frivolous and 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. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
(5th Cir. 1987).
Because Jackson 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 Jackson’s complaint and the
dismissal of this appeal each count as a strike 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). Jackson 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