Curtis Evans v. Marshall Fisher, 676 F. App'x 344

Plaintiff Curtis Chrishaun Evans, a Mississippi prisoner, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming due process and equal protection violations for failure to annually review his custodial classification and to reclassify him to medium security.
The district court allowed Evans to proceed in forma pauperis initially but later dismissed his complaint as frivolous and concluded he failed to state a constitutional claim.
The district court warned the dismissal counted as a "strike" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); this dismissal followed prior strikes, making it at least his third.
When Evans sought to appeal in forma pauperis, the district court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith (i.e., was frivolous), and therefore denied pauper status for the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of in forma pauperis status, dismissed the appeal as frivolous, and counted the dismissal as Evans’s fourth PLRA strike.
The court barred Evans from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while detained unless he alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury, and warned of sanctions for further frivolous filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to annually review classification and not reclassifying violated due process/equal protection	Evans contended lack of annual review and failure to reclassify deprived him of constitutional rights	Defendants argued Evans failed to state a viable constitutional claim	Court held Evans failed to state a claim; complaint frivolous
Whether the appeal is taken in good faith allowing in forma pauperis status on appeal	Evans argued his inmate account unchanged and he cannot pay costs, implying he should be allowed pauper status	District court and Fifth Circuit: appeal is frivolous, so ability to pay is irrelevant to in forma pauperis determination	Court held appeal was not in good faith; denied in forma pauperis and dismissed appeal as frivolous
Application of PLRA "three strikes" rule	Evans implicitly challenged denial by citing his financial status but did not dispute frivolousness	Court applied PLRA: prior strikes render him unable to proceed IFP absent imminent danger	Court counted this dismissal as a fourth strike and barred IFP filings absent imminent danger
Whether ability to pay affects IFP when appeal is frivolous	Evans focused on inability to pay court costs	Defendants: frivolousness, not indigence, governs IFP eligibility for appeals	Court held inability to pay irrelevant if appeal is frivolous; IFP denied

Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1992) (defines frivolous as lacking arguable basis in law or fact and discusses standards for dismissal under § 1915)