Jimmy Diaz, Texas prisoner # 1737301, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed Diaz’s § 1983 complaint with prejudice as barred by the three-strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Diaz does not address in his opening brief whether the district court erred in dismissing his complaint pursuant to § 1915(g). Even if we construe his pleading entitled “Affidavit Relating To Previous Filings” as a timely filed reply brief, this does not help Diaz. Although we ordinarily do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, see United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 767 F.3d 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2014), we have done so in the instant case in light of Diaz’s pro se status and in the interests of justice. Diaz’s arguments do not show that the district court erred in imposing the § 1915(g) bar and dismissing his complaint.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Diaz’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).