Charles L. Grable, Texas prisoner # 839605, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. Grable contends that his right of access to the courts has been violated because the state-court Clerk has refused to serve the attorney representing the State in Grable’s state habeas actions.

Grable does not allege that he has been deprived of his ability to prepare and transmit any legal documents to any court. He therefore has not alleged a nonfrivolous claim of deprivation of the right of access to the courts. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, the district court lacked jurisdiction to provide Grable with the equitable relief he sought. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973). The district court did not err by dismissing the action as frivolous. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

Grable’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the current case and this court’s dismissal of the appeal count as two strikes against Grable for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Grable is warned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.