Court Opinion

ID: 9368506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-04 01:00:30.249083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.746077
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51040        Document: 00516635070             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                      No. 21-51040
                                                                                 February 3, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Roberto Carlos Mendives, sui juris, and on behalf of his four
   minor children, R.C.M. II, M.A.M., G.L.M., E.F.M., (minor
   children),

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Bexar County, et al.; State of Texas, et al.; Angela Rose
   Wooten, (in err); Department of Health and Human
   Services, o/b/o; Department of Justice, o/b/o; Attorney
   Velia Judith Meza,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:21-CV-356
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51040      Document: 00516635070          Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/03/2023

          Roberto Carlos Mendives moves for leave to proceed in forma
   pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from a judgment dismissing his lawsuit as
   frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We review the
   district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion.
   See Shakouri v. Davis, 923 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2019); Geiger v. Jowers, 404
   F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Mendives
   has challenged the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in
   good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry
   into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “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) (cleaned up).
          An action may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious if it duplicates
   claims raised by the same plaintiff in a previous or pending litigation. See
   Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh,
   878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
   Cir. 1988). The district court noted that Mendives’s lawsuit was duplicative
   of five federal actions he had previously filed and found that the lawsuit was
   frivolous and malicious on this basis. Mendives has not shown that he will
   raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the dismissal of his complaint for
   purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Pittman, 980 F.2d at 994-95; Wilson, 878
   F.2d at 850; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021.
          Because Mendives has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous
   issue on appeal, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the
   appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;
   Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Mendives’s motion to expedite
   his appeal is DENIED as moot. Finally, his motion for judicial notice and
   all other outstanding motions are DENIED.