Adolphus Petty appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as malicious because it was duplicative of his earlier 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Petty’s motion for an injunction to preserve medical records is DENIED. Petty contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because he was not attempting to invalidate the result of any disciplinary hearing; that an interoffice memorandum attached to his appellate brief demonstrates that he did invalidate the results of his disciplinary hearing; and that the use of force against him violated the Eighth Amendment.

Petty does not contend that the district court erred by finding that his second 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was duplicative of his first 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and dismissing the action because it was malicious. Petty has failed to brief a dispositive issue for appeal and has abandoned that issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Petty’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). This court, on June 24, 2003, imposed the three-strikes sanction of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on Petty. Petty v. Kelly, No. 02-41231, 3-4 (5th Cir. Jun. 24, 2003). We remind Petty that he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any *68 facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 42.2.