Court Opinion

ID: 9406541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 00:01:03.512897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.309457
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10211         Document: 00516806489             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10211
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 June 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Charles Fredrick Roberts, III,                                                     Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Dallas County; Several Other Counties Nationwide;
   Grand Praire Jail,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2214
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Charles Fredrick Roberts, III, moves to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights complaint.
   The district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By
   moving in this court to proceed IFP, Roberts is challenging the district
   court’s certification decision. 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: 23-10211        Document: 00516806489         Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/30/2023

                                     No. 23-10211

   1997). 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).
          In his brief to this court, Roberts reframes his constitutional claims as
   relating to sexual privacy and marital privacy, and he now seeks to raise a
   claim under the Ninth Amendment, rather than the First Amendment. To
   the extent Roberts is attempting to raise new claims, he may not do so, as a
   party is not permitted “to raise an issue for the first time on appeal merely
   because [he] believes that he might prevail if given the opportunity to try a
   case again on a different theory.” Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d
   339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
   any event, no matter how they are styled, claims that Roberts’ constitutional
   rights have been violated because he has suffered psychological harm from
   the sexual behavior of others are frivolous because they rely on an
   “indisputably meritless legal theory.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472
   (5th Cir. 2001).
          In view of the foregoing, Roberts’ conclusional assertion that there
   was no factual or legal basis for the dismissal of his complaint, fails to raise a
   nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. His claim of
   judicial bias also fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue, as it is based on nothing
   more than 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). Finally, Roberts’ assertion of error in the denial of
   his motion for security proceedings does not provide a nonfrivolous issue for
   appeal.
          Because Roberts does not raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, his IFP
   motion is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. His appeal lacks arguable
   merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See id. at 202 n.24; Howard, 707

                                               2
Case: 23-10211    Document: 00516806489          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/30/2023

                                  No. 23-10211

   F.2d at 219-20; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Roberts’ motion to place the case under
   seal is DENIED.

                                           3