Roderick Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 121179, seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Jackson appeals from the dismissal of his prisoner civil rights action as frivolous. He challenges Inmate Posted Policy # 43 (IPP # 43), which limits the items a prisoner may possess while on disciplinary detention/extended lock-down.

Jackson argues that he was deprived of his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause when he was deprived of his non-complying property, which he alleges he mailed to a relative instead of allowing it to be destroyed. He argues that any postdeprivation remedies under state law were irrelevant to the substantive due process violation. Jackson has not identified any of the items that he was not allowed to possess pursuant to IPP #43, and has failed to indicate a factual basis for his legal action. See Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612, 632 (5th Cir. 1994).

Jackson’s IFP motion is denied and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of Jackson’s action. See *248 Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Jackson is warned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.