IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50136

Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 10-50443

BRENDA SHAW, Individually and as Next Friend to C.M., a Minor; LAKISHA

MCCALISTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

PHIL HARDBERGER, Mayor, City of San Antonio, in his Official Capacity, City

of San Antonio; SAPD OFFICER K. ALLEN, Individually and in Official

Capacity; SAPD OFFICER R. LUNA, Individually and in Official Capacity;

SAPD OFFICER JASON J. BRISENO, Individually and in Official Capacity;

CASEY CAMPOS, Individually and in Official Capacity; GERALD FULLER,

Individual and in Official Capacity; DAVID MCELWAIN, Individually and in

Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees

__________________________________________________

BRENDA SHAW, Individually and as Next Friend to C.M., a Minor,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

PHIL HARDBERGER, Mayor, City of San Antonio, in his Official Capacity, City

of San Antonio; K. ALLEN, SAPD Officer, Individually and in Official Capacity;

R LUNA, SAPD Officer, Individually and in Official Capacity; JASON J.

BRISENO, SAPD Officer, Individually and in Official Capacity; CASEY

CAMPOS, Individually and in Official Capacity; GERALD FULLER, Individual

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 10-50136 Document: 00511453485 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2011
No. 10-50136

c/w No. 10-50443

and in Official Capacity; DAVID MCELWAIN, Individually and in Official

Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CV-751

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiffs Brenda Shaw and Lakisha McCalister seek leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP)in their consolidated appeal of the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of San Antonio police officers Katie Allen, Ryan

Luza, Jason J. Briseno, David McElwain, Casey Campos, and Gerald Fuller in

the plaintiffs’ civil suit against the officers, the City of San Antonio, and San

Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger. They also move for leave to file an out-of-time

reply brief. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for leave to proceed

IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on the basis that the appeals were not

being taken in good faith.

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies

in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” § 1915(a)(3); see Baugh v. Taylor,

117 F.3d 197, 199-200 (5th Cir. 1997). The plaintiffs’ IFP motions and brief are

construed as a challenge to the district court’s certification. See Baugh, 117 F.3d

at 202.

 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.

2

Case: 10-50136 Document: 00511453485 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2011
No. 10-50136

c/w No. 10-50443

The plaintiffs do not, as they did in their complaint, raise any claims

against Hardberger, the City of San Antonio, Luza, or Briseno, and they do not

allege any claims on behalf of Carl or John McCallister. Additionally, they do

not, as they did in their complaint, raise any state law negligence, intentional

tort, or malicious prosecution claims, nor do they assert that any of their claims

arise under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or 1985(3). To the extent that any of the district

court’s orders concerning these claims and parties are appealable, the plaintiffs

have abandoned those claims by failing to brief them. See Hughes v. Johnson,

191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1999); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th

Cir. 1986).

The defendants argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider any of

the plaintiffs’ claims other than McCalister’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force

claim against Officer Katie Allen because the plaintiffs stated in their notice of

appeal that they were appealing only the denial of their motion to reconsider the

district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the

motion to reconsider addressed only McCalister’s excessive force claim against

Allen. However, because the plaintiffs referenced the grant of the defendants’

motion for summary judgment in their IFP motion and because the Government

does not allege any prejudice, the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal should be liberally

construed as merely mislabeling the judgment being appealed, and it should not

bar the plaintiffs’ appeal of any summary judgment-related issues. See

Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1991).

The plaintiffs argue that the district court’s grant of the defendant police

officers’ motion for summary judgment was improper because it was the officers’

second motion for summary judgment and because the second motion for

summary judgment did not provide any new facts or law than the officers’ first

motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied in part. However,

the district court’s denial in part of the officers’ first motion for summary

3

Case: 10-50136 Document: 00511453485 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2011
No. 10-50136

c/w No. 10-50443

judgment was without prejudice and was based on the district court’s inability

to consider the issues raised at the time due to a procedural issue. Under these

circumstances, the district court’s decision to consider a second motion for

summary judgment should be left to the district court’s discretion. See Enlow

v. Tishomingo Cty, 962 F.2d 501, 506-07 & n.16 (5th Cir. 1992).

The plaintiffs argue that there was a genuine issue of material fact

concerning the issue whether Officers Allen, McElwain, Campos, and Fuller

were entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth

Amendment excessive force claims due to the objective unreasonableness of the

officers’ actions. They further contend that because the officers did not raise the

issue of injury their motion for summary judgment, the district court erred in

granting summary judgment concerning their excessive force claims on that

basis. However, the defendants demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact concerning their qualified immunity defense to the plaintiffs’

Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37

F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Therefore, because the plaintiffs did

not provide any competent summary judgment evidence of any injuries that they

received and because proof of injury is necessary for the success of a Fourth

Amendment excessive force claim, the plaintiffs have not shown that there was

a genuine issue of material fact. See FED. R. CIV P. 56(e)(2); Hill v. Carroll Cty.,

Miss., 587 F.3d 230, 234 (5th Cir. 2009) (requiring a plaintiff to show, inter alia,

injury, to succeed on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim); Whitt v.

Stephens County, 529 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Shaw argues that the district court’s taxation of costs against her

in favor of Hardberger should be vacated because she is indigent and because

her claims were nonfrivolous and were raised for the public benefit. However,

§ 1915(f)(1) expressly provides that when a party proceeds IFP, “[j]udgment may

be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other

4

Case: 10-50136 Document: 00511453485 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2011
No. 10-50136

c/w No. 10-50443

proceedings,” and Shaw has not shown that her case was nonfrivolous.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in taxing Shaw for

costs. See Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985).

In light of the foregoing, the plaintiffs have not shown that their appeals

involve legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’

motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal are denied, and the plaintiffs’ appeals

are dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

DENY MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL; GRANT

MOTION TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME REPLY BRIEF; DISMISS APPEAL AS

FRIVOLOUS.

5

Case: 10-50136 Document: 00511453485 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2011