Court Opinion

ID: 9396962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 00:00:21.526893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.529503
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40696        Document: 00516761190             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

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

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     May 23, 2023
                                      No. 22-40696
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Tracy Nixon,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   General Motors Corporation,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:19-CV-287
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Tracy Nixon, proceeding pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma
   pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of
   his private civil action alleging patent interference and copyright
   infringement. The district court dismissed the proceeding because Nixon
   failed to show that he had properly served the defendant. By moving in this

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40696       Document: 00516761190         Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/23/2023

   court to proceed IFP, Nixon is challenging the district court’s certification
   that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because he had not shown
   that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117
   F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.
   1982).
            Before this court, Nixon argues that he properly served General
   Motors through the Texas Secretary of State pursuant to the Texas long-arm
   statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.044(a). He did not
   show that he met the conditions necessary for service pursuant to the Texas
   statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), (h)(1); § 17.044(a); Whitney v. L & L
   Realty Corp., 500 S.W.3d 94, 95 (Tex. 1973). Although Nixon maintains that
   the district court should have granted his request to allow substituted service
   under the long-arm statute, he cites no authority for the proposition that a
   court may permit such service unless the statutory conditions are met. He
   has not presented a nonfrivolous issue with respect to the dismissal without
   prejudice for failure to serve the General Motors. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202;
   Lindsey v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir. 1996).
            In addition, Nixon alleges that the district court should have recused
   itself from the proceedings because the judge owned stock in a company that
   entered a business agreement with General Motors. He has arguably failed
   to brief this issue before this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
   25 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if the issue is sufficiently briefed, Nixon has not
   shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue regarding the district court’s
   denial of the motion for recusal. See Sensley v. Albritton, 385 F.3d 591, 598
   (5th Cir. 2004); Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), (d)(4).
            The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Nixon’s motion to
Case: 22-40696    Document: 00516761190       Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/23/2023

   proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.