Court Opinion

ID: 9916454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:00:42.364307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:36.091010
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10517         Document: 00517026944             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10517
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                January 9, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Marcus Jarrod Payne,                                                                Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   The Anthony Scott Law Firm, P.L.L.C., also known as
   Brendetta Anthony Scott; Stacy Eley Payne, co-
   conspirator; Stacey G. Jernigan,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2926
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Marcus Jarrod Payne filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint seeking
   damages from the defendants, alleging violations of the First Amendment,
   federal conspiracy statutes, and a common law claim for intentional infliction
   of emotional distress. The district court denied Payne’s repeated motions to

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10517      Document: 00517026944           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/09/2024

                                     No. 23-10517

   amend his complaint to join a defendant, adjudicated him a vexatious litigant,
   and dismissed his § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
   relief may be granted. Payne has now filed a motion for authorization to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to
   the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good
   faith because Payne will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh
   v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          Payne’s motion to supplement the brief is GRANTED.
          Payne does not brief or challenge the district court’s dismissal of his
   claims against the defendants on the basis that they are not state actors for
   purposes of a § 1983 action. Accordingly, his claims are deemed abandoned.
   See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F. 2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v.
   Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Further, the
   district court correctly determined that it would have been futile under the
   doctrine of judicial immunity to add Judge Stacey G. Jernigan as a defendant
   given that Payne’s allegations concerned the judge’s adverse rulings in
   Payne’s bankruptcy proceedings. See Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 515 (5th
   Cir. 2005); Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United
   States Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (5th Cir. 1999). Similarly, Payne’s claims of
   impartiality alleged in his motion to recuse were based solely on the
   magistrate judge’s adverse rulings.         See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1).
   Accordingly, he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion
   in denying his recusal motion. See United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824,
   830 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Lastly, Payne does not dispute the litigation history cited by the
   district court in support of its vexatious litigant ruling or the district court’s
   analysis of the remaining factors set forth in Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures,
   LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 189 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, he has failed to show

                                           2
Case: 23-10517        Document: 00517026944         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/09/2024

                                     No. 23-10517

   that the district court abused its discretion in declaring him to be a vexatious
   litigant. See Baum, 513 F.3d at 189; Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 302
   (5th Cir. 2002).
          The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion to
   proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In light of the frivolousness of
   the instant appeal, as well as the litigation history cited by the district court
   in support of its vexatious litigant adjudication, Payne is WARNED that
   future repetitive or frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this
   court’s jurisdiction may subject him to sanctions. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852
   F.2d 806, 817 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                          3