Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0420-01.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

Ramon DEL CAMPO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DCS SANITATION MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-10878
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2008.
    Ramon Del Campo, Plainview, TX, pro se.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Ramon Del Campo has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in the district court. Del Campo seeks appointment of counsel on appeal. Del Campo has shown no exceptional circumstances that warrant an appointment. Del Campo’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may refuse to certify an appeal for in forma pauperis status if it is not taken in good faith.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Del Campo’s IFP motion is construed as a challenge of the certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). The court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Id. at 220 (quotation marks omitted). Del Campo provides no legal argument to show that the district court erred in denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

The motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied. Del Campo’s appeal is without arguable merit, and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20 (5th Cir.1983).

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
      
         Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except mider the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.