Singleton v. Sanders

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 22, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40119
Conference Calendar
NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NFN SANDERS, Commissary Manager,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-02-CV-839
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nathaniel Keith Singleton, Texas prisoner # 716045, has
filed a motion captioned "Motion to reply with brief in support"
following the district court's order dismissing as frivolous
Singleton's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Singleton's
motion is construed as a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis ("IFP"). By moving for IFP, Singleton is
challenging the district court's certification that IFP status
should not be granted because the appeal is not taken in good
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-40119
-2-
faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Singleton's IFP "motion must be directed solely to the trial
court's reasons for the certification decision." Id.Singleton asserts only that the district court was wrong for
denying him IFP. Although this court liberally construes pro se
briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the
court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because
Singleton does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the
district court's certification decision, he has abandoned the
issue on appeal. See id.Singleton has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, we uphold the district court's order certifying that
the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Singleton's 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.
Singleton is cautioned that the district court's dismissal
of his complaint as frivolous 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
Singleton 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).
No. 04-40119
-3-
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.