Donovan Evans, a pretrial detainee at the Lauderdale County Detention Center, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages on the basis that the defendants and fellow inmates harassed him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed Evans’s action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

A district court is required to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Evans does not challenge the district court’s determination that his action was subject to dismissal on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Evans also does not challenge the district court’s alternative decision that his action was subject to dismissal on the basis that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The dismissal by the district court of Evans’s complaint counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Evans has already accumulated at least two other strikes. See Evans v. Cessna, No. 3:14-cv-00846, 2014 WL 6750470 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 1, 2014); Evans v. Ford, No. 3:13-cv-00996, 2014 WL 1355457 (S.D. Miss. April 7, 2014); see also Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015). Evans is therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; BAR IMPOSED.