United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20512

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: Danielle Pauline Pendergraft; Scott 

Richard Pendergraft, 

Debtors,

Network of Neighbors, Incorporated, 

Appellee,

versus

Danielle Pauline Pendergraft; Scott Richard 

Pendergraft, 

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-1838

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20512 Document: 00515780109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2021
No. 19-20512

2

Before Haynes, Clement, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Scott Richard Pendergraft and Danielle Pauline Pendergraft, 

proceeding pro se, have filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) to appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to proceed IFP in 

the district court. The district court denied the motion to proceed IFP on 

appeal as well. To be granted leave to proceed IFP on appeal of the district 

court’s denial of IFP status in the district court, the Pendergrafts must 

demonstrate both financial eligibility and the existence of a nonfrivolous 

appellate issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th

Cir. 1982); see also Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 139-40 (5th Cir. 1997). They 

may make the latter showing by demonstrating that the “appeal involves legal 

points arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We review the 

district court’s denial of IFP status for abuse of discretion. Zer-Ilan v. 

Frankford (In re CPDC Inc.), 221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000).

Assuming without deciding that the Pendergrafts demonstrated 

financial eligibility, they have nonetheless failed to present a nonfrivolous 

issue for appeal in the district court and the district court thus acted within 

its discretion in denying them IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); 

§ 1915(a), (b); Zer-Ilan, 221 F.3d 698; Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. The 

Pendergrafts unsuccessfully pursued their original appeal of right of the May 

2017 bankruptcy court decision up until the Supreme Court’s denial of 

certiorari and of rehearing of that denial. Pendergraft v. Network of Neighbors, 

Inc., 745 F. App’x 517 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1240 (2019); see 

§ 158(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003; Brouwer v. Ancel & Dunlap (In re 

Firstmark Corp.), 46 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 1995). Whatever issues they 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 19-20512 Document: 00515780109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2021
No. 19-20512

3

failed to raise or abandoned along that appellate path, cannot now be raised 

anew. See Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Rodriguez), 695 

F.3d 360, 365 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012); Brouwer, 46 F.3d at 657.

Because the Pendergrafts have shown no nonfrivolous issue for 

appeal, the motion to proceed IFP on of the denial of IFP status in the district 

court is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh 

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-20512 Document: 00515780109 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2021