Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-12-11144/USCOURTS-ca5-12-11144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11144

Summary Calendar

THOMAS ANTHONY-EL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BANK OF AMERICA; COUNTRYWIDE; US BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, as trustee for the certificateholders of Citigroup Mortgage 

Loan Trust Inc., Mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2007-AR7; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

INCORPORTATED, 100034200057569950; RECON TRUST COMPANY N.A.; 

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, L.L.P.; LAUREN 

CHRISTOFFEL; KEIA ANDERSON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-144

Before DAVIS, OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Anthony-El has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his civil 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-11144 Document: 00512488497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2014
No. 12-11144

action. A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a 

pauper and that the appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

The financial requirement of poverty to qualify for IFP status does not 

require absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 

U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The question is whether the movant can afford the costs 

of litigation without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. Id. at 

339-40. To make this showing, Anthony-El must file an affidavit listing his 

assets as required by § 1915(a)(1). See Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 139-40 

(5th Cir. 1997). Based on the limited information provided, Anthony-El has 

not made the financial showing required to proceed IFP on appeal. 

Additionally, Anthony-El has failed to demonstrate that his appeal 

presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 568. A movant shows

that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal by demonstrating that the “appeal 

involves legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Although this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, arguments 

must be briefed in order to be preserved. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Mapes v. 

Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Even when his brief is liberally

construed, Anthony-El has failed to identify any error in the district court’s 

basis for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed 

IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Carson, 

689 F.2d at 586; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-11144 Document: 00512488497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2014