Full Opinion

Case: 26-50371 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-50371 November 10, 2026 ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk Joshua Greg Thomas, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Judge Denn Whalen, Whole Capacity, 70th District Court; Assistant District Attorney Kortney Williams, Whole Capacity; Defense Attorney Kevin Acker, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:25-CV-561 ______________________________ Before Jones, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Joshua Greg Thomas, Texas prisoner # 2631004, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a nonfrivolous claim on which relief may be granted. Thomas’s motion constitutes a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-50371 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2026 No. 26-50371 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The inquiry into an IFP movant’s good faith is “limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Thomas states only that he has “learned and gained knowledge of what the court expects” since he filed his complaint and that he believes “there are issues that [he] could better explain since [his] claim was denied for failure to state a claim.” As neither Thomas’s IFP pleadings nor his letter updating the court about additional alleged actions by the defendants address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint, he has abandoned any challenge to that decision. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). To the extent that Thomas’s letter attempts to raise entirely new claims and present new evidence not before the district court, we need not consider them. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). As Thomas has not raised a nonfrivolous issue, his IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Thomas’s complaint and our dismissal of this appeal each count as strikes for purposes of 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. 534, 537-40 (2015). Thomas now has two strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). He is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal 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). 2