Case Name: John T. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-17
Citations: 87 F. App'x 379
Docket Number: No. 03-10599
Parties: John T. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
John T. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-10599.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2004.
John T. Espinoza, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Laetitia Coleman Brown, City Attorney’s Office, Richard E. Henderson, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John T. Espinoza has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court's unfiling of his fifth postjudgment motion to vacate the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which has already been affirmed on direct appeal by this court. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Espinoza is challenging the district court's certification that IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).
Espinoza has not made a meritorious challenge to the district court's denial of IFP and has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Espinoza's request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Espinoza is also cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Espinoza should review any newly filed appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING GIVEN.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.