
    Anthony Leon GREENHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, on behalf of Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mark Edenfield; Jenna Epplin; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Correctional Officer Hunt; D Lair; Correctional Lieutenant Melton, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-30722
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 30, 2009.
    Anthony Leon Greenhill, U.S. Penitentiary Victorville, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Greenhill, federal prisoner # 56411-097, appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to reopen a complaint seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief. Greenhill v. United States, 275 Fed.Appx. 315, 317 (5th Cir.2008). Greenhill has moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court’s certification, pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-202 (5th Cir.1997), that his appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief is not taken in good faith.

Greenhill’s argument that the denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion under Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), is frivolous. The decision not to hold a Spears hearing to allow Greenhill to amend his complaint to add claims against new defendants was within the discretion of the district court. See Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 770 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the district court’s certification that Green-hill’s appeal is not taken in good faith is upheld, and Greenhill’s motion for IFP is denied. Because this appeal is frivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983), it is dismissed. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Greenhill that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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.” § 1915(g).

IFP 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.
     
      
      . Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).
     