IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50894

SEBASTIAN B. NIXSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

K. WILLIAMS, SAPD Officer, Badge #0820,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-710

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sebastian B. Nixson moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Nixson claimed 

that he was falsely arrested for driving while intoxicated and without 

insurance. The district court noted that Nixson’s complaint was duplicative of 

a previous action and dismissed the suit as frivolous and malicious. Denying 

his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, the district court certified that 

the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* 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 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50894 Document: 00513004844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-50894

By moving to proceed IFP, Nixson is challenging 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 an appellant’s 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). We may dismiss the 

appeal under 5th Circuit Rule 42.2 if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 

202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Nixson does not challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his 

complaint or denying him leave to proceed IFP on appeal. Pro se briefs are 

afforded liberal construction. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 

1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the 

district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that 

issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 

(5th Cir. 1987). Because Nixson has failed to challenge any legal aspect of the 

district court’s disposition of his complaint or the certification that his appeal 

is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issues of his appeal. 

Id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, Nixson’s motion for leave to proceed

IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We hereby inform Nixson that the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 

complaint and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388

(5th Cir. 1996). We warn Nixson that once he accumulates three strikes, he 

may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated 

2

 Case: 14-50894 Document: 00513004844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-50894

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3

 Case: 14-50894 Document: 00513004844 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2015