IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30457

Summary Calendar

RAYFIELD JOSEPH THIBEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNKNOWN PSYCHIARTIST, Eastern Louisiana Mental Health Systems; 

TOM DESPORT, Psychologist, Eastern Louisiana Mental Health Systems; 

BURL CAIN, Warden; UNKNOWN VAN BUREN, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CV-314

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rayfield Joseph Thibeaux moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in 

his appeal of the dismissal of his pro se complaint, in which he alleged that 

when he was incarcerated at the Dixon Correctional Institute the defendants 

implanted a monitoring device into his body. The district court dismissed his 

complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), denied leave to 

 

* 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

February 1, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30457 Document: 00514819952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 18-30457

2

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

Thibeaux has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal and a 

motion for the appointment of counsel.

A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a 

pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents 

nonfrivolous issues. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Although Thibeaux has filed an affidavit of poverty that indicates that he 

qualifies for IFP status, his allegations are fantastic, delusional, and wholly 

incredible, so they lack an arguable basis in fact and are frivolous. See Denton 

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The district court therefore did not 

abuse its discretion when it dismissed Thibeaux’s claims. See § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).

The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All 

outstanding motions are DENIED. The claims made by Thibeaux in the 

instant complaint are repetitive of claims that he made in another appeal that 

was dismissed as frivolous. See Thibeaux v. Cain, 425 F. App’x 399 (5th Cir. 

2011). Additionally, Thibeaux has a history of filing frivolous appeals and he 

has been warned that filing frivolous appeals would result in sanctions. See

id.; Thibeaux v. Fulbruge, 102 F. App’x 393, 393 (5th Cir. 2004). Because 

Thibeaux has previously been warned that future frivolous appeals would 

subject him to sanctions, a monetary sanction of $100 is IMPOSED, payable to 

the Clerk of this court. Until the sanction has been paid in full, he is BARRED 

from filing in this court or any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court any 

pleading relating to the subject matter at issue in this matter, unless he first 

obtains leave from the court in which he seeks to file such a pleading. 

Additionally, Thibeaux is WARNED that any future unauthorized, repetitive, 

 Case: 18-30457 Document: 00514819952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 18-30457

3

or frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction 

will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

 Case: 18-30457 Document: 00514819952 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2019