IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10305

Summary Calendar

TONY LAMAR VANN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRITISH PETROLEUM OIL COMPANY; CARL HENRIC SVANBERG, CEO;

TONY HAYWARD, Group Chief Executive; RACHAEL MACLEAN, Houston

Office Vice President; BRIAN SULLIVAN,Manager;MONICA COLLAZO,Team

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

appeal 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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10305 Document: 00511673491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2011
No. 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 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 citations omitted). 

“To aid in the determination of whether an IFP complaint if frivolous or fails to

state a claim, this Court has approved the use of an evidentiary hearing or

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 court may sua

sponte dismiss an action for failure 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 McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127; Berry v.

CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992); Helton v. Clements,

832 F.2d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 1988); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 16.003(a). 

Given that the “answers” that he provided (including one advising that

pertinent information would not be supplied until discovery) were brief and

generally unresponsive, and, further, given that 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 court abused its discretion. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.

2

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

Vann’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and 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