Court Opinion

ID: 9947991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 01:00:50.96375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:50.779657
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20355           Document: 57-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

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

                                  ____________                                    FILED
                                                                              March 5, 2024
                                   No. 23-20355                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                 ____________

Chemeka N. Alexander,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

McCarthy & Holthus L.L.P.; Sandra L. Dasigenis;
Michael Minicilli; Guild Mortgage Company; Ryse
Investments L.L.C.,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:22-CV-2920
                  ______________________________

Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Chemeka N. Alexander seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
from the dismissal of her claims against defendants McCarthy & Holthus
L.L.P., Guild Mortgage Company, and Ryse Investments L.L.C. The district
court determined that Alexander’s amended complaint failed to state a claim

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20355       Document: 57-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-20355

upon which relief can be granted, and it dismissed her claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
       By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Alexander challenges the
district court’s certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 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).
       “The failure-to-state-a-claim inquiry typically focuses on whether the
plaintiff plausibly alleges the elements of a claim.” Bell v. Eagle Mountain
Saginaw Indep. Sch. Dist., 27 F.4th 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2022). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
       Although Alexander nominally raises four issues for appeal in her
brief, she fails to establish that the factual allegations of her complaint
plausibly allege the elements of any claim raised in her amended complaint,
nor does she make a cogent argument that the district court erred in
dismissing her action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. To the extent Alexander argues that the district court failed to
dispose of claims raised in her pleadings, her contentions fail, as claims not
specifically addressed by the district court are “implicitly denied with the
entry of final judgment.” Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 n.6 (5th Cir.
1994). Further, to the extent that Alexander merely lists issues in her IFP
motion, without providing briefing, her presentation is insufficient and the
issues are considered abandoned. See Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128
(5th Cir. 1990).

                                      2
Case: 23-20355        Document: 57-1          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                  No. 23-20355

       Because Alexander has not demonstrated that there is a nonfrivolous
issue for appeal, her motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and her appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard,
707 F.2d at 220; see also 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                        3