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

No. 11-10305 Summary Calendar

TONY LAMAR VANN, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. BRITISH PETROLEUM OIL COMPANY; CARL HENRIC SVANBERG, CEO; TONY H A

YWARD, Group Chief Executive; RACHAEL MACLEAN, Houston O f f ic e Vic e President; BRIAN S ULL IV AN , M an a ge r ; M O N I CA C O LL AZ O , T e a m Associate; KATHLEEN MEADE, Manager, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CV-1517

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tony Lamar Vann moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on ap p e a l following the district court’s denial of his IFP motion and certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. He seeks to appeal the dismissal of his suit alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights when they failed to financially compensate him after he submitted to them, and they used, his plans 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 Novembe r 22, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat 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 for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10305 Document: 00511673491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2011No. 11-10305

for a device designed to stop the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Vann did not comply with the magistrate judge’s order to answer a questionnaire seeking further information about his claims. Vann’s IFP motion challenging the certification decision “must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the certification decision.” Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good fait h “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on thei r m erits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To aid in the determination of whether an IFP complaint if frivolous or fails to

s tate a claim, this Court has approved the use of an evidentiary he a r i n g o r questionnaires.” Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Spears

v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985)). A district c o u r t m a y sua sponte dismiss an action f o r f a i l u r e to prosecute or to comply with any court order. Rule 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Because the dismissal at issue was without prejudice and the applicable statute of limitations would not currently bar Vann’s refiling of the suit, we review for

an abuse of discretion. See M cCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127; Berry v. C I GN A /R S I-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992); He l to n v . Cle m e n ts , 832 F.2d 332, 33 4 ( 5 t h Cir. 1988); T E X
. C I V
. P RA C
. & R E M
. C O D E AN N
. § 16.003(a). Given that the “answers” that he provi d ed (including one advising that
p e r t i nent information would not be supplied until discovery) were brief a n d generally unresponsive, and, further, given t h a t the great majority of his response challenged the magistrate judge’s authority to issue the questionnaire and threatened legal action against the district court, Vann fails to show that the district c o u r t abused its discretion. See McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127.

2 Case: 11-10305 Document: 00511673491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2011No. 11-10305

Vann’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, a n d his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

3 Case: 11-10305 Document: 00511673491 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2011