Court Opinion

ID: 9554198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 00:00:33.251019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:19.862531
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20070        Document: 00516848237             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

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

                                      No. 23-20070
                                                                            FILED
                                                                       August 7, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   Charles Otis Herring,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Buc-ee’s Ltd.,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-330
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Charles Otis Herring moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP) on appeal from the summary-judgment dismissal of his pro se, private
   civil suit for racial discrimination against Buc-ee’s Ltd. (Buc-ee’s) under
   Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.
   Herring’s IFP motion challenges the district court’s determination that the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20070      Document: 00516848237          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20070

   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) (citation omitted).
          Although Herring contends that he was discharged by a Buc-ee’s
   employee who sent him home in violation of corporate policy, the record
   evidence supports the district court’s determinations that Herring was not
   discharged, did not suffer an adverse employment action, and was not
   constructively discharged. See Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th, 333, 339
   (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, to make prima facie showing of Title VII
   racial discrimination, plaintiff must establish by preponderance of evidence,
   inter alia, that he was discharged or suffered adverse employment action);
   Bye v. MGM Resorts Int’l, Inc., 49 F.4th 918, 924 (5th Cir. 2022), cert.
   dismissed, 143 S. Ct. 1102 (2023) (stating that, to establish constructive
   discharge, “a plaintiff must establish that working conditions were so
   intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign”
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Regardless, Herring does
   not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenges to, the district
   court’s determinations that (1) he cited no evidence that he had been
   replaced by someone outside of his protected group or had been treated less
   favorably than another similarly situated employee, see Ernst, 1 F.4th at 339;
   and (2) even if he could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, his
   undisputed violation of a Buc-ee’s beverage policy constituted a legitimate,
   nondiscriminatory reason for Buc-ee’s to terminate his employment, and he
   failed to show that this reason was pretextual. See McCoy v. City of Shreveport,
   492 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2007); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
   Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant must brief arguments to preserve
   them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748

                                          2
Case: 23-20070      Document: 00516848237           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                     No. 23-20070

   (5th Cir. 1987) (observing that failure to identify any error in district court’s
   analysis is same as if appellant had not appealed).
          We need not address Herring’s challenges to the district court’s
   alternative grant of summary judgment on the ground that Herring failed to
   raise a fact issue as to pretext regarding the allegation that he had harassed a
   coworker.     Finally, no record evidence supports Herring’s numerous
   assertions that the district court was biased against him. See Liteky v. United
   States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding that “judicial rulings alone almost
   never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”). As he has not
   shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, Herring’s motion to
   proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                          3