United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10721

Summary Calendar

____________

Joyce Pipkins, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Grand Prairie Police Department; NFN Patterson, 

Officer; David Hunter, Officer, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CV-2879

______________________________

Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Joyce Pipkins moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on 

appeal from the district court’s dismissal of her pro se civil complaint. Her 

complaint, as clarified by her answers to the district court’s interrogatories, 

raised claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for 

violating and conspiring to violate her civil rights, as well as under Texas 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-10721

2

Family Code § 52.02, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and the United States and Texas 

Constitutions.

In her IFP motion and appellate brief, Pipkins argues that the district 

court erred by failing to apply less stringent standards to her complaint due 

to her pro se status and by applying the more stringent standard of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, 

she fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue, as these arguments misrepresent the 

record and misstate the applicable law. See DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145, 

152 (5th Cir. 2011); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). 

Regarding her federal law claims, Pipkins contends that her claims 

alleging the denial of equal protection and due process are supported by the 

facts specifically pleaded in the complaint. This conclusory contention does 

not raise a nonfrivolous issue because it does not address the district court’s 

specific reasons for determining that she failed to state a claim under § 1983

and § 1985, nor does it specify which facts in her complaint would otherwise 

support a due process or equal protection claim. Thus, Pipkins has 

abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determinations regarding her 

federal law claims. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th 

Cir. 2002); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann 

v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, Pipkins contends that her complaint raised substantial 

disputed federal issues and thus the district court had jurisdiction over her 

state law claims. However, because she has not demonstrated any error in 

the district court’s dismissal of her federal claims, she has not presented a 

nonfrivolous issue that this matter justified departure from the general rule 

requiring dismissal of pendent state law claims. See Parker & Parsley 

Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-10721

3

Because Pipkins fails to show that her appeal raises a nonfrivolous 

issue, her 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); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2023