Court Opinion

ID: 9380041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 00:00:29.211325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.138163
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40730        Document: 00516679583             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                                                          FILED
                                      No. 22-40730                   March 16, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________
                                                                           Clerk

   Ka’Sandra Nelson, Individually and on behalf of her mentally ill son
   Hubert Lake Jr. as next friend, an inmate in the Smith County Jail,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Smith County; Smith County Jail; The City of Tyler,
   Texas; Jimmy Toler, Police Chief, Tyler Police Department; David
   Hall, Sergeant, Tyler Police Department; Bradley Smith; Lance
   Parks,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CV-411
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Ka’Sandra Nelson filed a pro se complaint in which she asserted civil
   rights claims as next friend on behalf of her mentally incompetent son,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40730       Document: 00516679583          Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/16/2023

                                     No. 22-40730

   Hubert Lake, Jr. This district court dismissed the action without prejudice.
   Nelson has now filed a motion for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the district court’s
   certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because Nelson
   will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
   197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
            Most of Nelson’s brief is devoted to the merits of claims stemming
   from events involving her son. She fails to raise any argument that challenges
   the district court’s dispositive procedural determination that, as a pro se
   litigant, she cannot maintain suit on behalf of her son, nor does Nelson
   meaningfully dispute the district court’s implicit treatment of her complaint
   as raising claims solely on her son’s behalf. Nelson has therefore abandoned
   these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            To the extent that Nelson merely lists or identifies issues, without
   including any supporting arguments in the body of her brief, those issues are
   considered abandoned. See Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir.
   1990). To the extent that Nelson has adequately briefed an argument
   premised on the asserted failure of defendants Smith County and Smith
   County Jail to timely respond to her civil action, and the refusal of the district
   court to enter a default judgment because of the lack of a timely response, her
   argument is not supported by the record, which demonstrates that these
   defendants timely filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion,
   which postposed the date for filing a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ.
   P. 12(a)(4)(A).
            Finally, Nelson asserts that the district court may have been biased
   against her because she is handicapped, indigent, and a member of a racial

                                               2
Case: 22-40730      Document: 00516679583          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/16/2023

                                    No. 22-40730

   minority. Her conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient. See Koch v.
   Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). In any event, Nelson’s argument
   is based on nothing more than the district court’s adverse rulings, which,
   except in circumstances that are not present here, are insufficient to show
   judicial bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
          In view of the foregoing, Nelson fails to show that she will present a
   nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
   1983). Accordingly, Nelson’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED,
   and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                              3