Court Opinion

ID: 9841500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:28.687158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:28.400861
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60044         Document: 00516904737             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 23-60044                            September 22, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                          Clerk

   Chaz Pinkston,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Jeannette Pointe; Premier Supply Link, L.L.C.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                 USDC No. 5:22-CV-17
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Chaz Pinkston, Mississippi prisoner # 148934, moves for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 complaint. In his IFP motion and brief, Pinkston conclusorily asserts
   that the district court treated his case carelessly and/or perfunctorily when
   it: (1) “dismissed his in forma pauperis complaint (for appeal) as legally and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60044      Document: 00516904737           Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 23-60044

   factually frivolous without understanding or paying attention to the actual
   facts and legal theories in the complaint;” (2) “granted summary judgment
   without looking closely enough at the record to see that there were genuine
   material factual disputes;” (3) denied him a fair opportunity to be heard; and
   (4) erred by refusing to allow him to receive the discovery that he requested.
   He argues that his sworn, particularized declarations and affidavits “were
   completely disregarded though they highlighted and created genuine
   material factual disputes as they are factual in truth plus factual in law despite
   zero documentary evidence at times to support or corroborate them.”
          Pinkston’s challenges to the adequacy of the district court’s
   consideration of the record and the court’s determinations regarding his
   discovery requests are conclusory and are belied by the record. Although
   Pinkston asserts that his appeal has been filed in good faith for the reasons set
   forth in his district court pleadings, such incorporation by reference is not
   permitted. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
   Pinkston has failed to meaningfully brief any challenge to the district court’s
   reasons for denying his claims and granting the defendants’ motions for
   summary judgment. As a result, he has abandoned any challenge to these
   determinations. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
   Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because he fails to
   show that his appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue, his motion to proceed IFP is
   DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v.
   Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
   220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          This dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McGarrah v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015).
   Pinkston is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will be barred
   from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated

                                           2
Case: 23-60044      Document: 00516904737           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 23-60044

   or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious
   physical injury. See id. at 585; § 1915(g).

                                           3