IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60079

Summary Calendar

PATRICK L. KING; CATHY S. KING,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; COPIAH COUNTY; CITY OF HAZLEHURST; 

RIAA; JAMES DUFF INVESTIGATIONS, L.L.C.; CHANNEL 12 WJTV; FOX 

40; CHANNEL 3 WLBT; GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING 

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:14-CV-157

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick L. King and his wife, Cathy S. King, move to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of their complaint filed in 2014, in which 

they asserted numerous claims against the various defendants. The 

allegations in the complaint arose out of Patrick King’s arrest and subsequent 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60079 Document: 00513477116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
No. 15-60079

2

guilty plea in state court to multiple felony counts of selling recordings without 

displaying required information. The district court granted each defendant’s 

motion to dismiss because either the district court was without subject matter 

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or the Kings failed 

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied the Kings permission to proceed 

IFP on appeal.

We review dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1) and (6) de novo. Raj v. La. State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 

2013) (involving a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)); Atchafalaya 

Basinkeeper v. Chustz, 682 F.3d 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2012) (involving a dismissal 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)). We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

On appeal, the Kings challenge the district court’s determination that 

Patrick King’s attack on the constitutionality of his convictions and sentences 

are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994). Because Patrick 

has not made the showing required by Heck, he has not shown that his attack 

presents a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

Next, the Kings challenge the district court’s rejection of their 

defamation claims against WJTV, WLBT, Fox 40, and the Clarion-Ledger. 

Because the Kings have not shown that the district court erred in determining 

that their defamation claims were time barred under state law, they have 

failed to establish that their defamation claims present a nonfrivolous 

appellate issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see MISS. CODE ANN. § 15-1-35 

(2003).

The Kings also dispute the district court’s determination that Attorney 

General Jim Hood could not be added as a defendant. Because the Kings 

 Case: 15-60079 Document: 00513477116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
No. 15-60079

3

provide only conclusory arguments that the district court erred, they have

abandoned any challenge to the district court’s decision. See Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

In their remaining claims, the Kings fail to meaningfully address the

district court’s reasons for dismissing their complaint and denying them IFP 

status. Consequently, they have not shown that they will raise any 

nonfrivolous appellate arguments regarding these issues. See Howard, 707 

F.2d at 220; see also Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Because the Kings have failed to show that their appeal involves any 

arguably meritorious issue, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220, their motions for 

leave to proceed IFP on appeal, for sanctions against the defendants, and for 

the issuance of a subpoena to the court reporter are DENIED. The appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-60079 Document: 00513477116 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2016