Court Opinion

ID: 9904848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 01:00:43.347357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.191506
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10255         Document: 00516980204             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10255
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 27, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Stephen Barnes,                                                                     Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   James Walters; Andre Salone; Stephen Holt; Dallas VA
   Medical Center,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-3099
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Stephen Barnes, pro se plaintiff-appellant, moves for leave to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his
   civil complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
   In his complaint and on appeal, he claimed that his employer—the Dallas
   Department of Veterans Administration Medical Center—and individuals
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10255      Document: 00516980204           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                     No. 23-10255

   who worked there engaged in age-based employment discrimination,
   retaliation, and wrongful termination against him pursuant to the Age
   Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634.
          To proceed IFP, Barnes must demonstrate financial eligibility and a
   nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Jackson v. Dall. Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260,
   261 (5th Cir. 1986). We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim
   pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th
   Cir. 1999). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
   when the claim does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
   is plausible on its face.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205
   (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Where a
   complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability,
   it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
   relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          With respect to his age discrimination claim, Barnes failed to allege
   his “qualifications for the promotions,” as well as “what the positions
   actually were and what the ages and qualifications were of those who were
   given promotions.” Norsworthy v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.4th 332, 337
   (5th Cir. 2023). As to the retaliation claim, he failed to “allege facts that
   could show a causal link between any alleged protected activities (such as
   filing grievances) and the alleged adverse actions (such as failures to
   promote).” Id.
          Because Barnes has not demonstrated that his appeal involves “legal
   points arguable on their merits,” his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED,
   and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
   220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Baugh
   v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                          2