### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20331 Summary Calendar

CHARLES L. STRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ED PETERS; BOBBY DELAUGHTER; CHARLES KNAUS S ; CHARLES HEDGEPETH; HENRY CLAY, III; ET AL, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-1085

Before KING, JOLLY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles L. Stringer filed in district court a civil RICO complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1 9 6 1 e t seq. against numerous defendants. The district court dismissed his complaint with prejudice citing “a variety of reasons, including res judicata and want of jurisdiction

. ” Th e district court also denied Stringer’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 13 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20331 Document: 00511785984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2012No. 11-20331

Stringer now seeks leave f r o m th i s court to proceed IFP on appeal. His IFP motion is construed as a challenge to the district cou rt ’ s d e n i al of leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court may deny a motion for leave to appeal IFP by certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and by providing written r e a s o n s f o r the certification. See id. ; F E D
. R

. AP P
. P. 24(a)(2). To comply with the written-reasons requirement, it su f f i c e s that the district court incorporate by reference its decision dismissing the complaint on the merits. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.21. In this c a s e , the district court did not explain whether the denial of IFP was based upon a lack of good faith or Stringer’s f a i l u r e to show that he was indigent. However, the financial affidavit provided by Stringer in support of his IFP motion in the district court indicates that he is indigent, and the district court granted him leave to proceed IFP when he filed his complaint. The district co u rt ’ s d e nial of his IFP motion also did not provide any written reasons or reference the judgment of dismissal. In the interests of judicial economy and p ru d e n c e , we may meld the decisions regarding an IFP motion and the underlying appeal when appropriate. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202. In th i s c ase, the district court’s judgment of dismissal with prejudice does not provide this court with sufficient information to permit reasoned consideration of any of the stated or inferred bases for that dismissal. Accordingly, Stringer’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further consideration by the district court. In doing so , w e do not express any opinion as to the underlying merits of Stringer’s claims.

2 Case: 11-20331 Document: 00511785984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2012