Darrell J. Harper moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Under Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5), this court may entertain a motion to proceed IFP when the district court has denied a litigant leave to proceed IFP. To proceed IFP on appeal, a movant must demonstrate that he is a pauper and that he will raise non-frivolous issues on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). A movant makes the latter showing by demonstrating that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 500 F.3d 401, 407 (5th Cir. 2007) (“ ‘An appeal is frivolous when it involves legal points that are not arguable on their merits.’ ”).

Harper’s IFP motion fails. He does not state the nature of the claims that he will raise on appeal, asserting only that he is unable to pay the filing fee. Harper thus has not shown that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219. Harper’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

This court previously sanctioned Harper for the filing of frivolous appeals and ordered him to pay $100. See Harper v. Atlas, 197 Fed.Appx. 305 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Undaunted by the prior sanction, Harper has filed yet another frivolous appeal. We now order Harper to pay $300 as a sanction to the clerk of this court. Harper is barred from filing any *352 pleading in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the total amount of the sanction imposed on him is paid in full. Harper is also warned that any future meritless filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions, as will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are frivolous.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.