Jose Cristobal Cardona, federal prisoner # 40869-080, appeals from the dismissal of his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Cardona contends that he had a First Amendment right to correspond with a prisoner in another institution whom he purported to represent as a next friend in that other prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action. Cardona did not establish his status as a next friend in the other prisoner’s proceeding, see Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 164, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990); Magallon v. Livingston, 453 F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2974, 165 L.Ed.2d 981 (2006); his First Amendment claim rests on a flawed factual premise. Moreover, Cardona has no general First Amendment right to communication with prisoners in other prison units. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

Cardona’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Cardona’s action and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s dismissal and this court’s dismissal of the appeal in Cardona v. Tuite, No. 07-30041, 2007 WL 4371967 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2007) (unpublished), also count as two strikes under § 1915(g). Id. As Cardona has now accumulated at least three strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915 while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.