Court Opinion

ID: 9931297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:01:18.78989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:05.499532
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40481         Document: 00517059975             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 23-40481                              February 8, 2024
                                      ____________
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Frederick Herrod,                                                                       Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   The 79th Members of Congress, in official capacity,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:23-CV-16
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Frederick Herrod, former Texas prisoner #01006908 and current
   federal prisoner # 15525-010, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil complaint as frivolous and
   for failure to state a claim for relief. The motion is a challenge to 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).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40481        Document: 00517059975          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                      No. 23-40481

          The district court dismissed Herrod’s complaint on the grounds that
   his claims against the defendants were barred by Congressional immunity as
   set forth in the Speech and Debate Clause and that it otherwise lacked
   authority to grant the relief sought or order the defendants to grant the relief
   sought. Herrod fails to address the district court’s reasons for the dismissal
   of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Pro se briefs are
   afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
   1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the
   district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the
   decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
   (5th Cir. 1987).
          Because Herrod has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of
   the district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal
   is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal.
   See id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
   215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to 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.
          The district court’s dismissal of Herrod’s complaint as frivolous and
   for failure to state a claim and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each
   count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
   F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v.
   Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015).        Herrod is WARNED that if he
   accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil
   action or appeal filed while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he
   is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

                                           2