Joe Brooks v. John Smith, et al, (5th Cir. 2010)

Text

---

Case: 09-60543 Document: 00511147751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2010

No. 09-60543

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

JOE LOUIS BROOKS,,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MAYOR JOHN ROBERT SMITH; CITY OF MERIDIAN POLICE

DEPARTMENT; TERRELL THOMPSON; DAREALL THOMPSON; MARK

CHANDLEE; THERMON BUCHANAN; CANTWELL; THAD FORD; GLADYS

PRICE MCWILLIAMS; JOHN NELSON; MICHEL PHILLIPS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:08-CV-145

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Joe Louis Brooks, Mississippi prisoner # 83462, appeals the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his 42U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court found that Brooks’s claims for monetary damages were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). To the extent Brooks was seeking * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-60543 Document: 00511147751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2010 habeas relief, the district court dismissed his claims without prejudice. The district court noted that its dismissal of Brooks’s complaint counted as a strike under 28U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Brooks has failed to brief the district court’s reasons for the dismissal and has therefore abandoned the only grounds for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). His conditions-of-confinement allegations were not presented to the district court and need not be considered. See Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592, 605 (5th Cir. 2003).

Brooks’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. This court’s dismissal of Brooks’s appeal counts as another strike for purposes of 28U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Brooks is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed 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.

See § 1915(g).

Brooks’s request for an extension of time to file anything else that might be necessary is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

---