Case ID: f-appx_353/html/0925-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Walter Lee HALL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50788
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 24, 2009.
    William Lance Lewis, Esq., Marcie Lynn Schout, Quilling, Selander, Cummis-key & Lownds, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Walter Lee Hall, Jr., Pflugerville, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Hall, Jr., seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the grant of summary judgment against him and the denial of three different post-judgment motions. The district court denied IFP status and certified that Hall’s appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Hall is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). However, Hall has not demonstrated any nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

The notice of appeal filed by Hall was timely with respect to only the denial of Hall’s “reurged second motion to vacate” the district court’s judgment. Hall’s brief filed in support of his IFP motion does not contain any argument that indicates that the district court abused its discretion in denying this motion. See Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir.1996); Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. City of Galveston, 898 F.2d 481, 481 (5th Cir.1990); Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir.1981).

This appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits, and it is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, Hall’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.