IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10654

JOSE LEONEL PORTILLO-MEZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GARLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Garland, Texas; NFN OWENS, Officer, 

Garland Police Department; NFN MAAS, Officer, Garland Police Department,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-1024

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Leonel Portillo-Meza moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In his 

complaint, Portillo-Meza alleged that the defendants illegally arrested him 

based on false accusations of domestic violence and that, as a result, he 

suffered over $200,000 in business losses. The district court dismissed Portillo-

* 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: 14-10654 Document: 00513005273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-10654

Meza’s action as frivolous, denied his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, 

and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Portillo-Meza 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 a litigant’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). 

Portillo-Meza argues that the district court failed to consider that the 

defendants initially arrested him for domestic violence without a warrant and

that, once the allegations of domestic violence proved to be false, the officers 

charged him with failure to identify as a fugitive simply to avoid any 

complaints of racial discrimination or other constitutional violations. 

Additionally, he argues that he suffered business losses due to the unlawful 

arrest and not due to his subsequent, valid convictions and imprisonment for 

failure to identify and illegal reentry. 

Portillo-Meza has not shown that the district court’s dismissal of his 

§ 1983 action as frivolous constituted an abuse of discretion, see Black v. 

Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998), or that his appeal involves any 

arguably meritorious issues, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Even if PortilloMeza had established a constitutional violation, his allegation that he suffered 

$200,000 in business losses due to his initial arrest for domestic violence rather 

than due to his subsequent, valid convictions and imprisonment for failure to 

identify and illegal reentry “rise[s] to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see also Murray v. 

Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 290 (5th Cir. 2005).

2

 Case: 14-10654 Document: 00513005273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-10654

Accordingly, we DENY his motion and DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. 

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Both our dismissal and the 

district court’s dismissal count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Portillo-Meza is 

CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to 

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or 

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

physical injury.” See § 1915(g). Portillo-Meza is also WARNED that, as a nonprisoner, any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.

3

 Case: 14-10654 Document: 00513005273 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2015