Court Opinion

ID: 9381322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 18:00:58.733131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.703947
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60864        Document: 00516684667             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023

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

                                      No. 21-60864
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                               March 22, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Chakakhan R. Davis,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:14-CV-375
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Smith, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         In 2014, Chakakhan R. Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint
   alleging that, due to the negligence of the defendants, she was injured while
   shopping in a Wal-Mart store. Although she initially was allowed to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP), the district court later found that Davis had been
   deceptive regarding her ability to pay costs and dismissed her complaint. We

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60864      Document: 00516684667           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                     No. 21-60864

   dismissed Davis’s appeal in 2016. A 2018 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60
   motion was denied by the district court, and we dismissed her appeal from
   the denial of that Rule 60 motion in February 2020.
          In November 2020, Davis filed another Rule 60 motion in the district
   court; she argued that her IFP pleadings had not been dishonest or deceptive,
   that the defendants and district court had engaged in fraud to dismiss her
   complaint, and that she had been allowed to proceed IFP in other cases. The
   district court denied the motion, stating that it lacked any legitimate factual
   or legal basis. Davis then filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion,
   which the district court also denied. She appealed. The district court denied
   leave to proceed IFP on appeal because Davis had failed to submit an updated
   application or financial affidavit.
          Davis now moves in this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal.
   Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). To proceed IFP, a litigant must demonstrate
   both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v.
   Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). An appeal presents nonfrivolous
   issues when it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits. Howard v.
   King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). If an appeal is frivolous, we may
   dismiss it sua sponte. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
   202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). Davis also has filed a motion to expedite the
   consideration of her IFP motion.
          In her appellate brief, Davis asserts that her post-judgment motions
   presented new clear and convincing evidence of the defendants’ fraud.
   However, this new evidence consists of the fact that she was granted leave to
   proceed IFP in other cases, including one case involving the same district
   court judge who dismissed the instant complaint. We have reviewed the
   arguments in Davis’s brief, and we conclude that none of them “involves
   legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because

                                          2
Case: 21-60864      Document: 00516684667            Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                      No. 21-60864

   Davis has not shown that she will raise any nonfrivolous issues on appeal, her
   IFP motion is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Her motion for an
   expedited ruling also is DENIED.
          As noted above, since our dismissal of Davis’s initial appeal in 2016,
   she has filed two Rule 60 motions, a Rule 59 motion, and two more appeals
   in connection with this case. Davis is WARNED that future unauthorized,
   repetitive, or frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction may subject her to sanctions. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d
   806, 817 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                           3