United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 04/07/2022
No. 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 district court dismissed the 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 

motions, 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 motion 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: 04/07/2022
No. 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