Summary Calendar JOSEPH HARRIS v. Richard Lstalder

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-31277
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH HARRIS
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
RICHARD L STALDER; LYNN COOPER; ALPHONSE PACHECO; BUD
HAYES; CINDY SOILEAU; CAROL JEANSONNE; J AYMOND; JACOB
LOUIS; SIDNEY FISHER; JENNIFER DOYLE
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:06-CV-1213
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Harris, Louisiana prisoner # 368687, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Harris has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal,
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 3, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-31277
2
challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good
faith pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Harris alleged that the defendants were liable for his physical injuries
because he slipped and fell on the wet prison kitchen floor and because they
failed to provide him with proper medical treatment for those injuries. Harris
fails to allege a viable deliberate indifference claim on these bases. See Domino
v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001); Neals v.
Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Although Harris also alleges that he
was attacked in the infirmary by some prison personnel, that claim fails because
it is not supported by a physical injury that is more than de minimis. See Siglar
v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Harris’s claim regarding the
prison administrative process fails because he does not have a liberty interest
in having his prison administrative complaint resolved in a certain manner. See
Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s
certification that Harris’s appeal is not taken in good faith is upheld, Harris’s
motion for IFP is denied, and this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Harris is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous
counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike
for the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-
88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Harris that if he accumulates three strikes, he
may not 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).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --