
    Gregory Lynn JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darren COWTHORN; Valandor Cowthorn, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-31011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 25, 2016.
    Gregory Lynn Johnson, Shreveport, LA, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Johnson, Louisiana prisoner # 46415, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court concluded that Johnson’s complaint was time barred. Johnson’s request for IFP status was denied, and the district court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Johnson challenges the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Johnson argues that he was entitled to tolling of the limitations period based on the doctrine of contra non valentem because he was unaware of his legal rights. Johnson’s own ignorance of his cause of action does not entitle him to tolling of the limitations period. See Corsey v. Louisiana, 375 So.2d 1319, 1321-22 (La.1979); see also Terrebonne Parish Sch. Bd. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 310 F.3d 870, 885 (5th Cir.2002).

This appeal lacks arguable legal merit and is, therefore, frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Johnson’s motion to proceed IFP is denied, and we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Johnson is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any 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).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     