
    Darius Nigel SAULS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Martha E. MAES; Kelly J. Sooter; Alan N. Danner; Theresa L. Hendrick; Narciso A. Sanchez; Kendall T. Rich-erson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-10748
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 19, 2008.
    Darius Nigel Sauls, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Darius Nigel Sauls, Texas prisoner # 917032, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as malicious. Sauls argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as duplicative of the complaint in case no. 06-CV-276. Sauls reasserts his arguments that his civil rights were violated by verbal threats, false disciplinary proceedings, and seizures of his property from his cell.

Sauls does not argue, much less show, that the instant suit does not duplicate the claims in district court case no. 06-CV-276. Thus, Sauls has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the lawsuit was repetitious and, therefore, malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); See also Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir.1989).

Sauls’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The district court’s dismissal of Sauls’s complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). The dismissal by the district court of case no. 06-CV-276 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim also counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387-88. Because Sauls has now accumulated three strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis 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.” § 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     