Court Opinion

ID: 9383563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 18:00:47.726834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.239715
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40733         Document: 00516695035             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                       No. 22-40733                             March 30, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Joshua Calhoun,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   LaMorris Marshall; Chase R. Johnson; Nickie Page;
   Dylan Adams; Lonnie Townsend; Zachary Chapman;
   Michael Davis,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CV-279
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Joshua Calhoun, Texas prisoner # 1985495, seeks leave to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) in this interlocutory appeal from an order of the district
   court that overruled Calhoun’s objections to an order issue by the magistrate
   judge that terminated the appointment of counsel and effectively denied the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40733      Document: 00516695035          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                    No. 22-40733

   appointment of new counsel, and also denied Calhoun’s request for
   injunctive relief. By moving in this court to proceed IFP, Calhoun is
   challenging the district court’s certification that the instant appeal is not
   taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In
   reviewing the district court’s decision, our inquiry “is limited to whether the
   appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not
   frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The district court’s order denying injunctive relief is immediately
   appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 444
   (5th Cir. 2009). However, to the extent Calhoun’s appeal is taken from an
   order effectively denying the appointment of counsel, he has appealed from
   the denial of a non-appealable interlocutory order. See Williams v. Catoe, 946
   F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc).            As such, the appeal is
   DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction. See id.
          In his IFP filings, Calhoun contends that the district court did not
   properly determine that he was required to pay the filing fee in installments.
   He asserts in an attenuated and conclusory fashion that his underlying civil
   action against prison officials is meritorious. Also, Calhoun renews an
   allegation that his former appointed counsel had an inappropriate
   relationship and makes vague assertions that counsel withheld evidence.
          Calhoun makes no meaningful effort to demonstrate that the district
   court erred in denying his request for injunctive relief. Because he effectively
   fails to challenge the district court’s ruling, Calhoun has abandoned the
   relevant 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). As Calhoun fails to demonstrate that his appeal will involve a
   nonfrivolous issue, his appeal is DISMISSED IN PART as frivolous, and

                                              2
Case: 22-40733     Document: 00516695035           Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                    No. 22-40733

   his IFP motion is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir.
   R. 42.2. Calhoun also moves for the appointment of counsel, for a remand
   to the district court, and to compel the production of evidence. These and
   any other remaining motions are DENIED.
          Calhoun is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes under 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or
   appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is
   under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

                                             3