
    Henry GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; Louisiana’s Indigent Defense System; City of Baton Rouge; Andre Doe, Officer; John Doe, Officer; Kip Holden, Mayor; Elmer Litchfield, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-30626
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2007.
    Henry Gray, Farmerville, LA, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Henry Gray, Louisiana prisoner #431881, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint against various government officials as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364,129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

On appeal, although Gray raises most of the substantive claims that he raised in his complaint and contends that government officials should not be given immunity from lawsuits arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he does not challenge the district court’s determination that his claims were barred by Heck. Accordingly, he has abandoned the only issue before this court. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir.1999).

Gray’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Gray’s complaint as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Gray is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed 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. See § 1915(g).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     