Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50742/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50742-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50742

BENNY MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

DYLAND HALE, Tactics Officers, Midland Police Department; 

B.J. LAND, Lieutenant Supervisor, Midland Police Department; 

CARLOS PIZANO, Police Officer, Midland Police Department; 

DOMINGUEZ, Police Officer, Midland Police Department,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CV-106

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benny Montgomery, Texas prisoner # 1589407, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

 

* 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

May 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50742 Document: 00513507019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2016
No. 15-50742

2

§ 1983 complaint alleging that members of the Midland Police Department 

used excessive force in a 2008 arrest. The district court sua sponte dismissed 

the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A based on a determination 

that it was not timely filed. See, e.g., Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th 

Cir. 1993). We construe Montgomery’s motion as a challenge to the district 

court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We must determine “whether the 

appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Assuming, arguendo, that Montgomery was denied a fair opportunity to 

establish equitable tolling in the district court, we grant the motion for IFP, 

but we dispense with further briefing and affirm. Texas’s equitable-tolling 

principles control. See Rotella v. Pederson, 144 F.3d 892, 897 (5th Cir. 1998).

Texas courts sparingly apply equitable tolling and look, inter alia, to 

whether a plaintiff diligently pursued his rights. See Hand v. Stevens Transp., 

Inc. Emp. Benefit Plan, 83 S.W. 3d 286, 293 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2002, no pet.). 

Montgomery does not cite any state precedent to show that Texas has applied 

equitable tolling in circumstances similar to those he alleges. Moreover, even 

if federal equitable-tolling principles are considered, “attorney negligence, 

however styled, does not provide a basis for equitable tolling.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 645, (2010); Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 

(1990). Montgomery’s suggestion of intentional deception by his attorney is 

entirely conclusional and is thus insufficient to support a claim for equitable 

tolling. See, e.g., United States v. Riggs, 314 F. 3d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Furthermore, Montgomery has not shown a diligent pursuit of his rights. See 

Hand, 83 S.W. 3d at 293.

 Case: 15-50742 Document: 00513507019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2016
No. 15-50742

3

 The dismissal of the complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387–88 (5th Cir. 

1996). Montgomery is advised that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not 

be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or 

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. See § 1915(g). 

The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50742 Document: 00513507019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2016