Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10424/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10424-0/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. 14-10424

Summary Calendar

WENDELL S. CHISOLM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COMPLAINANT UNKNOWN, Desoto Police Officer; DESOTO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; RON SMITH, Individually and In His Official Capacity as a 

Desoto Police Captain; DETECTIVES, NAMES UNKNOWN; COMPLAINT, 

NAME UNKNOWN, Individually, Desoto Detectives and Police Officer,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-4808

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wendell S. Chisolm appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). She 

argues that her Fourth Amendment claims and her malicious prosecution 

* 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

March 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10424 Document: 00512973288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
No. 14-10424

claims are not time barred. She also moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Chisolm is challenging the district 

court’s certification that her appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); § 1915(a)(3). This court 

may authorize Chisolm to proceed IFP on appeal if she demonstrates that she 

is a pauper and that her appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents 

nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). This 

court’s inquiry into the litigant’s 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) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). If the appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua 

sponte. Baugh, 117 F.3d 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Chisolm’s Fourth Amendment claims accrued more than four years 

before she filed suit. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). 

Accordingly, her claims were time barred. See Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 

246 (5th Cir. 2002); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a). Chisolm’s 

reliance on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), is misplaced. The 

record contains no evidence that Chisolm was ever prosecuted or convicted of 

any offense; therefore, Heck does not apply.

Chisolm’s challenge to the dismissal of her state-law malicious 

prosecution claim is likewise unavailing. See Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214, 219 

(5th Cir. 1993). Chisolm has failed to make the requisite showing under Pete. 

Therefore, she has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion by dismissing this claim as frivolous. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 

732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).

2

Case: 14-10424 Document: 00512973288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
No. 14-10424

Chisolm has failed to show that her appeal involves “legal points 

arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard, 707 F.2d at 

220 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Her IFP motion is 

therefore denied, and her appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

3

Case: 14-10424 Document: 00512973288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2015