Case Name: Darrell J. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 04-20787
Parties: Darrell J. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
Darrell J. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-20787.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2005.
Darrell J. Harper, Houston, TX, pro se.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darrell J. Harper filed a civil complaint against the City of Houston for $10,000,000, alleging unspecified "racial profiling" and "corruption." The district court dismissed his complaint because it violated an injunction entered December 23, 2002. Harper has filed a motion in this court seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
Harper's financial affidavit establishes that he is unable to pay the costs of his appeal without undue hardship or deprivation of life's necessities. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). However, Harper does not address the reason for the district court's dismissal of his complaint, and Harper has failed to establish a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). His IFP motion is DENIED. As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Harper is warned that any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited, circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.