Joseph Bernard Fowler, Texas prisoner # 1812422, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Although his brief repeats some of his allegations in the district court, he fails to-address the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his claims. We liberally construe pro se briefs, but “even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Fowler’s failure to point to any error in the district court’s ruling is in practical effect the same as if the judgment had not been appealed. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal in the district court and our dismissal on appeal each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court also dismissed Fowler’s complaints as frivolous in Fowler v. Exec. Dir. of Pardons and Paroles, No. 2:05-cv-00235 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016), and Fowler v. Exec. Dir. of Pardons and Paroles, No. 2:05-cv-00249 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016). Because he has accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915(g), Fowler is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

We deny Fowler’s motions for appointment of counsel, see Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982), and his “omnibus motion questioning the court,” see Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 368 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995).

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