Court Opinion

ID: 9388207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 00:00:30.671895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.838848
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50994   Document: 00516718227     Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/19/2023

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

                             No. 22-50994
                                                                     FILED
                                                                 April 19, 2023
                            ____________
                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Mickey R. Taylor, Jr.,                                            Clerk

                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                  versus

   R. Winn, Badge #425, also known as John Doe #1; M. Rodriguez,
   Badge #317, also known as John Doe #2; I. Cortinas, Badge #328, also
   known as John Doe #3; John Doe #4, MPD Officer; C. Duarte,
   Badge #332, also known as John Doe #5; Mark Jaquez, Badge #406,
   also known as John Doe #6; Leith Hill, Badge #308, also known as
   John Doe Deputy Supervisor #1; John Doe Deputy
   Supervisor #2; Midland County, Texas; Jane Aranda,
   Badge #327, also known as Jane Doe Jail Guard #1; John Doe Jail
   Guard #2; Captain FNU Graham, also known as John Doe Jail
   Guard Supervisor #1; FNU Chuco, also known as John Doe
   Jail Guard #1; Officer FNU Serrano, also known as John Doe
   Jail Guard #2; FNU Reed/Reid, also known as John Doe Jail
   Guard #3; Lt. FNU McCainey, also known as John Doe Jail
   Guard Supervisor #2; Lt. FNU Gibson, also known as John
   Doe Jail Guard Supervisor #3; FNU Garner/Gardner, also
   known as Jane Doe Jail Guard,

                                                  Defendants—Appellees.
Case: 22-50994         Document: 00516718227             Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:20-CV-124
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Mickey R. Taylor, Jr., Texas prisoner # 02367588, moves to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his
   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.          Taylor’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).
          In his appellate filings, Taylor largely discusses the merits of his § 1983
   claims and contends that (i) the district court failed to view his complaint and
   the summary judgment motions in a light most favorable to him; (ii) he was
   not given an opportunity to provide evidence; (iii) the merits of his case
   should have tried before a jury; (iv) the district court should have appointed
   him counsel; (v) the summary judgment grant was premature because his
   claims were not ripe to be decided in their totality; (vi) the district court failed
   to obtain evidence favorable to Taylor; and (vii) the district court erred in
   dismissing Midland County, Texas as a defendant.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                    2
Case: 22-50994       Document: 00516718227           Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                      No. 22-50994

           Taylor also raises claims related to his bail, bond, pretrial counsel, and
   the fee schedule “for court appointed indigent counsel” in Midland County,
   Texas. Because these claims are raised for the first time on appeal, we will
   not consider them. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
   (5th Cir. 1999). Otherwise, Taylor 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). Taylor 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).

                                               3