Summary Calendar LEVY DICKERSON v. Burl Cain; Robert Murray; D. Jones; Linda Ramsey

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 16, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30334
Summary Calendar
LEVY DICKERSON
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BURL CAIN; ROBERT MURRAY; D. JONES; LINDA RAMSEY
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:05-CV-1398
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Levy Dickerson, Louisiana prisoner # 356193, moves this
court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
following the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and IFP
civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We construe Dickerson’s motion as a
challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal
is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
202 (5th Cir. 1997).

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-30334
-2-
Dickerson challenges the district court’s dismissal for
failure to state a claim, arguing that he was entitled to due
process before being placed in Camp J extended lockdown for seven
months after being found guilty of the disciplinary infraction of
possession of contraband. We review a dismissal for failure to
state a claim de novo. Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64
(5th Cir. 2003).
Dickerson has not shown that his placement in Camp J
extended lockdown presented an atypical or significant hardship
beyond the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d
431, 436 (5th Cir. 2003). To the extent that the district court
construed Dickerson’s complaint as alleging a claim of the
issuance of “a false disciplinary report” Dickerson has abandoned
such claim by failing to argue it on appeal. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Dickerson has failed to establish that he seeks to present a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for IFP
is denied, and the appeal dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Dickerson that
he has accumulated two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). If he
accumulates three strikes, he may no longer proceed IFP in any

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-30334
-3-
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); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818,
819-20 (5th Cir. 1997).
MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --