United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10823

Summary Calendar

Veletta Coleman, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Todd Combs, Chief Executive Officer and President at Geico-County 

Mutual Insurance Company and Geico Government Employees Insurance 

Company; Warren Buffett, CEO Berkshire Hathaway; SarahRenee Hollingsworth Garner; Spencer Browne, Attorney; 

Law Office of Reyes, Browne, and Reilly; C. Marsh, Badge 

#5233; City of Dallas, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CV-1493

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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

May 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10823 Document: 00516302398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
No. 21-10823

2

Valetta Coleman seeks leave to appeal, in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the 

dismissal of her lawsuit for want of jurisdiction. By such motion, Coleman is 

challenging the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be 

taken in good faith because, for the reasons relied upon in the order of dismissal, she will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh 

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Before this court, Coleman asserts that she is financially eligible to 

proceed IFP and that her appeal is brought in good faith. She conclusionally 

states that the defendants violated her civil and constitutional rights; she

renews her claims of conspiracy and violations of state law. But she fails to 

brief any argument explaining what specific constitutional or federal rights 

the defendants violated or otherwise challenging the district court’s conclusion that she failed to establish federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction. 

She has therefore abandoned any challenge to the reasons for the dismissal. 

See 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). 

Inasmuch as Coleman complains that the district court violated her 

due process rights by denying a hearing and/or jury trial, the argument will 

not be considered as it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. 

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the 

argument fails to address the lack of a jurisdictional basis for her suit. 

To the extent that Coleman asserts that the district court was biased 

against her, the claim lacks merit because it is based solely on unfavorable 

rulings. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). To the extent 

that she complains that the district court erred in denying her motion for the 

appointment of counsel, she fails to show any exceptional circumstances to 

warrant counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212–13 (5th Cir. 

1982).

Case: 21-10823 Document: 00516302398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
No. 21-10823

3

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, 

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

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Coleman was cautioned in the district court that the pursuit of frivolous actions would invite sanctions. Because she has failed to heed that warning, she is ORDERED to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of court, and 

she is barred from filing any pleading in this court or any court subject to this 

court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full unless she obtains leave 

of the court in which she seeks to file such pleading. 

Coleman is once again WARNED that the filing of repetitive or frivolous pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction 

could result in additional sanctions. She is DIRECTED to review all pending matters and to move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

Case: 21-10823 Document: 00516302398 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/02/2022