REVISED November 16, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20121

Summary Calendar

COLLINS O. NYABWA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WARDEN PAM LYCHNER, State Jail, Individually and Official Capacity,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-2638

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Collins O. Nyabwa has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP). He seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In that 

complaint, Nyabwa alleged that the Pam Lychner State Jail and its warden 

violated his constitutional rights by falsely imprisoning him based on his three 

 

* 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

November 15, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20121 Document: 00514239710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2017
No. 17-20121

2

Texas state convictions for improper photography. After completion of 

Nyabwa’s term of imprisonment, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in 

an unrelated case that the improper photography statute was 

unconstitutional. See Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325, 351 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). In this case, the district court determined that Nyabwa’s claims 

were legally frivolous and that his complaint was also malicious because he 

repeated allegations that had been rejected in a previous civil action. The 

district court denied Nyabwa leave to proceed IFP because it certified that his 

appeal was not taken in good faith for the same reasons expressed in its 

dismissal order.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Nyabwa challenges the 

district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See 

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into his good 

faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their 

merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th 

Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nyabwa’s motion 

for leave to file a supplemental brief on appeal is GRANTED.

Nyabwa has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by 

dismissing his complaint as frivolous or malicious. See Ruiz v. United States, 

160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998). He has not shown how his citation to the

actual-innocence prong of the test set forth in Reyes-Requena v. United States, 

243 F.3d 893, 900-04 (5th Cir. 2001), is relevant in this context. Nyabwa is not 

entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513 because those statutes 

“come into play only after a defendant has succeeded in overturning his federal 

conviction and is seeking damages for wrongful conviction.” Freeman v. 

Johnson, 79 F. App’x 3, 3 (5th Cir. 2003). Similarly, his reliance on Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code Ann. § 103.001 or other state law fails to state a 

 Case: 17-20121 Document: 00514239710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2017
No. 17-20121

3

valid claim under § 1983. See Southwestern Bell Tel., LP v. City of Houston, 

529 F.3d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2008). To the extent he seeks to invoke Nelson v. 

Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017), we need not consider that argument because 

it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 

183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). In any event, Nelson does not directly 

support his argument because that case did not involve a claim of false 

imprisonment. Furthermore, examination of his complaint in this appeal and 

his prior complaint dismissed in Nyabwa v. Warden, Individual and Official 

Capacity, Pam Lychner State Jail, No. 4:16-cv-1643 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2016), 

supports the district court’s dismissal of his instant complaint as malicious. 

See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, Nyabwa has failed to show an error in the district court’s 

certification decision and has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous 

issue on appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. 

Nyabwa’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Nyabwa is CAUTIONED that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive filings will result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, 

monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court 

or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. He should review any pending 

appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or 

otherwise abusive.

 Case: 17-20121 Document: 00514239710 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2017