Acie Gilkey, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1219076, moves to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits as friv *274 olous and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. The district court denied Gilkey leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Gil-key has failed to adequately brief the issues raised in the district court’s certification decision. He therefore has not shown that the district court’s determination that his appeal would be frivolous was incorrect. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Consequently, his request for IFP is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Gilkey’s consolidated complaints 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 (5th Cir. 1996). Gilkey accumulated two other strikes in Gilkey v. Graves, No. 3:03-CV-497, 2003 WL 21653858 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 9, 2003), and Gilkey v. Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, No. 3:03-CV-498, 2003 WL 21503136 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 7, 2003). As Gilkey now has accumulated at least three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP pursuant to § 1915 in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

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