# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 **; Sarah**

  ** Renee 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fi fth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10823 Document: 00516302398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2022No. 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 dis

missal, 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
proc eed 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 explain ing what specific constitutional or federal rights the defendants violated or otherwise challenging the district court’s conclu

sion that she failed to establish federal

- question subject

- matter jurisdiction

. S he has therefore abandoned any challenge to th e 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 ri ghts 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 b ecause it is based solely on unfavorable rulings. See Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) . T o the extent that she complains that the district court erred in den ying 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: 05/02/2022No. 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 frivo

lous actions would invite sanctions. Because she has failed to heed that warn

ing, s he is **ORDERED** to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of court, and

s he is barred from filing a ny pleading in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full unless s he obtains leave of the court in which s he seeks to file such pleading.
Coleman is once again **WARNED** that the filing of repetitive or f riv

olous pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdic tion could result in additional sanctions. Sh e is **DIRECTED** to review all pend

ing matters and to move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or other

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