Court Opinion

ID: 9896686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 01:00:34.740174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:12.293789
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30590        Document: 00516965199             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                         November 13, 2023
                                      No. 23-30590
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   Fred Howard, Jr.,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   City of Shreveport; D. J. Gaut, individually and as an employee of
   the City of Shreveport; James N. Roberts, individually and as an
   employee of the City of Shreveport; Joey Hester, individually and as an
   employee of the City of Shreveport; William Scott, individually and as an
   employee of the City of Shreveport; T. W. Oster,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 5:01-CV-2303
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Fred Howard, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 117952, moves to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30590      Document: 00516965199          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                    No. 23-30590

   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. His motion was filed following
   the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
   U.S.C. § 1983.     Howard’s IFP motion 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. 1997). This court’s 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).
          Howard contends that his judgment is void and that he is entitled to
   relief under Rule 60(b)(4), because his § 1983 proceeding was reassigned
   from one district court judge to another and the judge to whom the case was
   assigned lacked jurisdiction to sign and enter the judgment of dismissal.
   Howard does not make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous issue
   for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his 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.
          The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike 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). Howard 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