Edward Smith (“Smith”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment in which he challenged the district court’s dismissal of his claim against the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on the basis of arbitral immunity. Smith has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s denial of IFP status.

A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Policy, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Smith asserts that the AAA is not immune from civil liability because the arbitrator engaged in “non judicial action” regarding his motion for contempt. Smith cites to Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) in support of his argument.

As the district court determined, Smith’s reliance on Míreles is misplaced. Míreles supports the district court’s determination that the arbitrator’s actions in the instant case, relating to the disposition of Smith’s motion for contempt, was an action taking in the arbitrator’s quasi-judicial capacity in the administration of the arbitration proceedings. See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 286. As such, the claim against the AAA is barred by arbitral immunity. See Hawkins v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 149 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for relief from judgment. See Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir. 1992).

Smith has failed to show that he will raise any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Smith is WARNED that he may be subject to sanctions if he makes any further frivolous filings.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.