Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40356/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40356-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40356

Summary Calendar

____________

Bobby B. Kirkendoll, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Warden, FCI Texarkana, 

Respondent—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:23-CV-142

______________________________

Before Smith, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bobby Kirkendoll, federal prisoner #12934-035, moves to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the validity of his federal prosecution under the Interstate 

Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). The district court determined that Kirkendoll was not entitled to relief because at the time the United States sought 

to commence prosecution, he was in the custody of the State of Louisiana, 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40356 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
No. 24-40356

2

which was not a party to the IAD and thus was not subject to its terms; the 

court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. This 

court’s inquiry into whether an appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to 

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) (citation omitted).

Before this court, Kirkendoll asserts that his arguments arose under 

Article V(g) of the IAD, which does not include a reference to “party states” 

and thus applies to all states regardless whether they adopted the IAD. His 

contention is unsupported by the plain language of the IAD. See 18 U.S.C. 

App. 2 § 2, Arts. II, V. 

Kirkendoll does not make the requisite showing that he will present a 

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, 

theis motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED

as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 24-40356 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2024