
    Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY JAIL SRT UNIT; Dallas County Sheriff; Texas Dallas County; SRT Officer NFN Martin, Team Leader Dallas County Jail; SRT John Doe, No. 1; SRT John Doe, No. 2; SRT John Doe, No. 3; SRT Officer NFN Weatherton; SRT Officer NFN Castillo; Lieutenant Mark Wooten, North Tower Shift Commander Dallas County Jail; Sergeant John Doe, 1st watch North Tower Shift Supervisor Dallas County Jail; Captain James Howell, North Tower Facility Commander Dallas County Jail; Chief Deputy Downs, Jail Administrator; Dallas County Commissioners; SRT NFN Lockwood, Dallas County Jail; Texas Commission on Jail Standards, TCJS, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-10914
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 22, 2008.
    Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Dallas, TX, pro se.
    
      Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lakeith Amir-Sharif moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as duplicative. One who wishes to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is impecunious and that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).

Amir-Sharif argues that the district court erred by dismissing his suit as duplicative without first specifying exactly which claims were duplicative of the claims filed in an earlier suit. He also maintains that his claims, which pertain to cell and body cavity searches, have merit. Amir-Sharif has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit as duplicative. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988). He likewise has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous claim in his appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     