
    Andre David LEFFEBRE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FEDERAL CORPORATION UNITED STATES; United States Federal Corporation; USA Inc.; US Inc., Private and Associate Agents, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-41184
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 24, 2008.
    Andre David Leffebre, Federal Correctional Institution El Reno, El Reno, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Andre Leffebre, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary at Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se and in-forma, pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his suit for damages arising from his conviction and incarceration of being a felon in possession of a firearm. That conviction has not been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, and the district court properly dismissed the instant action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Leffe-bre’s appeal is frivolous and without arguable merit, and is accordingly dismissed. See 5th Cir R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Leffe-bre’s action and this Court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Ham-mons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Leffebre accumulated additional strikes for the dismissal of similar claims in Leffe-bre v. Carter, No. 3:06-CV-149, 2007 WL 4206180 (S.D.Tex., Nov. 26, 2007) and Leffebre v. Cothren, No. 3:06-CV-150, 2007 WL 4198554 (S.D.Tex., Nov. 26, 2007). As Leffebre has now accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) BAR IMPOSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     