Court Opinion

ID: 9930811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 19:01:27.634325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:28.193062
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10709        Document: 00517058576             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024

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

                                                                                            FILED
                                      No. 23-10709                                   February 7, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                            Clerk

   Karen E. Tucker,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   United States of America; Secretary Agency of Health
   and Human Services, United States of America,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CV-810
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Karen E. Tucker moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
   from the judgment denying her petition for a writ of error coram nobis under
   28 U.S.C. § 1651 and dismissing her various other civil claims. Through her
   motion, Tucker challenges the district court’s determination that the appeal
   is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10709      Document: 00517058576          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                    No. 23-10709

   1997). Our inquiry, therefore, “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) (citation omitted).
          Besides challenging the denial of coram nobis relief, Tucker asserts
   only that the district court erred by dismissing a civil rights claim alleging a
   conspiracy to convict her. Accordingly, she has abandoned any challenge to
   the dismissal of her other civil claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
   (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
   748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Tucker offers no cogent explanation how any of the purportedly new
   evidence upon which she relies supports her conclusory claims for coram
   nobis relief. See Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir.
   2017) (observing that pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations or legal
   conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to state a
   claim for relief” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
   Fundamentally, as the district court concluded, she repeats the same claims
   of ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence that she previously
   raised in her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and her first petition for a writ of error
   coram nobis. See United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004)
   (holding that petitioner fails to show complete miscarriage of justice, as is
   necessary to receive coram nobis relief, by repeating claims previously
   presented, or that reasonably could have been raised, in § 2255 motion).
          Further, even if Tucker raised in the district court her instant claim
   that several individuals conspired to convict her, her allegations are bare
   conclusions supported by nothing more than unadorned speculation. See
   Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). Because she has not shown that
   her appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, her motions to proceed IFP and for

                                          2
Case: 23-10709    Document: 00517058576          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                  No. 23-10709

   appointment of counsel are DENIED, and her appeal is DISMISSED as
   frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24.; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                       3