
    Stevon ARCHIE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James LeBLANC; Pat Book, Warden, Catahoula Correctional Center; John Doe; Joan Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-30651
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 22, 2010.
    Stevon Archie, Kinder, LA, pro se.
    Paula Ellis Miles, Office of the Attorney General, Harry Bradford Calvit, Provosty, Sadler, Delaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel, Alexandria, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Stevon Archie, Louisiana prisoner #439157, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We construe Archie’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).

Archie does not challenge either the district court’s determination that he failed to comply with its discovery orders, nor does he challenge the court’s dismissal of his complaint based on his failure to comply with such orders. He argues that his claims against Warden Book were barred in federal court on the basis of sovereign immunity and, thus, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint.

The Eleventh Amendment does not limit jurisdiction as to suits against parishes. United Disaster Response, LLC v. Omni Pinnacle, LLC, 511 F.3d 476, 479 (5th Cir.2007). In Louisiana, the operation of the parish prison is the responsibility of local parish authorities, not of the State. See Fairley v. Stalder, 294 Fed.Appx. 805, 811-12 (5th Cir.2008), cert, denied, - U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1619, 173 L.Ed.2d 995 (2009). Archie’s contention that he is prohibited from suing Warden Book in federal court is thus without merit.

Archie’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     