# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40778 Summary Calendar

**Alan R. Decker,** Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Alan Todo; Robert Sheehy,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CV

- 278

Before **Southwick, Graves,** and **Costa,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Alan R. Decker seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his private civil action

. By moving to appeal IFP, Decker challenges the certification that the appeal is not in good faith. See McGarrah v. Alford , 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). “ An appeal is taken in good faith

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 7, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40778 Document: 00516271351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2022No. 20

- 40778

2 if it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. ” Id . This court may dismiss an appeal “ when it is apparent that an appeal would be meritless. ” Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);

see **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2.
The distr i ct court dismis s ed th e action as untimely, noting that Decker had failed to show that he was unable to file the action because he was in a coma from 2004 to 2017. However, Decker filed several post

- judgment
mot ions, and his notice of appeal thus applies only to the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60 motion does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See Edwards v. City of Houston , 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The denial of the motion “ must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion. ” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). In his brief, Decker offers a rambling litany of alleged errors, including the district court ’ s failure to believe evidence of his 12

- year coma; the defendants ’ perjury and liability; and various matters of no apparent relevance, such as service of process. He fails show that the denial of the Rule 60 m otion was an abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves , 635 F.2d at 402

. Accordingly, he identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See McGarrah , 783 F.3d at 584 . His IFP motion is **DENIED** , and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

**.** See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 ; see **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2

. Decker has filed several frivolous and untimely lawsuits, most of which involve Care Sharp . A district court has warned Decker that “ any future frivolous complaints ” may result in “ a vexatious

- litigant

- injunction proceeding. ” Decker v. Watson , No. 3:21

- CV

- 212, 2021 WL 4164240, at * 2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2021)

. We now also **WARN** Decker that future frivolous actions, motions, or appeals may result in sanctions, including monetary Case: 20-40778 Document: 00516271351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2022No. 20

- 40778

3 sanctions and limits on his access to this court and any court subject to this
court ’ s jurisdiction. Case: 20-40778 Document: 00516271351 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2022