Carl V. Long, Texas prisoner # 1001354, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b). By moving for IFP, Long is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Long does not address the district court’s reason for dismissing his claims against C. Tony Wright, namely that Wright is not a state actor. He also presents no nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to his claim against Judge John Jackson. “[LJitigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights *801 suits.” Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the relief Long sought was in the nature of mandamus relief. Federal courts have no power to direct state judicial officials in the performance of their functions. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275,1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s certification that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Long’s motion for IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 and n. 24; 5th Cm. R. 42.2.

Both the district court’s dismissal of Long’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of this appeal count as “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Long 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.