Court Opinion

ID: 9891973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 00:00:33.839429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:41.259550
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11126         Document: 00516937671             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11126
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 19, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Mack Wright; Alice Wright,                                                          Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                             versus

   Raymond Sam Minardi,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:10-CV-189
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Raymond Sam Minardi moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s order reviving a judgment that
   was issued in May 2012 against him and in favor of Mack and Alice Wright.
   The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11126       Document: 00516937671           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/19/2023

                                      No. 22-11126

   is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
   1997).
            In his pro se appellate brief, Minardi raises a number of challenges to
   the May 2012 judgment including that (1) the district court granted summary
   judgment for the Wrights without permitting him an opportunity to respond;
   (2) the Texas state court and the bankruptcy court both determined that he
   had not committed any fraud or securities law violation; (3) the State of
   Texas investigation into Minardi’s prior investment entity was caused by a
   mistake made by a bank employee; and (4) it was Nyle Field, not Minardi,
   who fraudulently induced the Wrights to invest in Minardi’s investment
   entity at issue in this case. Minardi does not directly challenge the order of
   revival of the May 2012 judgment. Further, the issues he raises could have
   been, but were not, raised in a direct appeal of the May 2012 judgment. Thus,
   he does not present a nonfrivolous challenge to the order of revival. See
   Taylor v. Harris, 21 Tex. 438, 439-40 (Tex. 1858); In re Fitzgerald, 429
   S.W.3d 886, 895-96 (Tex. App. 2014); see also Med. Ctr. Pharmacy v. Holder,
   634 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011).
            Minardi also contends that (1) the district court improperly ignored or
   denied many of his post-judgment motions, (2) the district court and the
   Wrights’ counsel engaged in improper tactics to collect on the May 2012
   judgment, and (3) he was wrongfully held in civil contempt and detained for
   failing to disclose bank records that were not subject to legal disclosure. All
   of his post-judgment arguments are inadequately briefed. Although pro se
   briefs are afforded liberal constructions, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
   520-21 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments and reasonably
   comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, see
   Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

                                           2
Case: 22-11126    Document: 00516937671          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/19/2023

                                  No. 22-11126

         As Minardi has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on
   appeal, his appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
   220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Minardi’s motions for IFP and for waiver
   of fees are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                       3