Court Opinion

ID: 9955701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 00:00:38.667339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:15.973888
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30820            Document: 30-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/28/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                                          FILED
                                                                                    March 28, 2024
                                    No. 23-30820
                                   ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
Kelton L. Spann,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bogalusa Clerk of Court Office; Tonia Deleon, Deputy
Clerk,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 2:21-CV-519
                   ______________________________

Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Kelton L. Spann, a Washington Parish Jail inmate at the time that he
filed the instant appeal, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim
and the subsequent denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
motion. Through his IFP motion, Spann challenges the district court’s

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30820        Document: 30-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                  No. 23-30820

determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry, therefore, “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).
       Contrary to Spann’s assertion, the district court sufficiently complied
with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) by incorporating by reference its orders dismissing his complaint
and denying his Rule 59(e) motion. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.21. Spann
does not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenge to, the district
court’s implicit dismissal of his claim that the Bogalusa City Court Clerk’s
Office (Clerk’s Office), together with another local entity, retaliated against
him for invoking his constitutional rights. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
225 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant must brief arguments to
preserve them).
       We review a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Taylor
v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2015).           Establishing
municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436
U.S. 658 (1978), “requires proof of three elements: a policymaker; an official
policy; and a violation of constitutional rights whose ‘moving force’ is the
policy or custom.” Piotrowski v. City of Hous., 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir.
2001) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Although Spann contends that he
stated a valid Monell claim against the Clerk’s Office and Deputy Clerk Tonia
Deleon (in both her official and individual capacities) because they acted
pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom of disallowing indigent
defendants to appeal without paying fees and costs, he did not allege the
existence of any official written policy, see Balle v. Nueces Cnty., 952 F.3d 552,
559 (5th Cir. 2017), nor did he cite with specificity any similar prior incidents

                                        2
Case: 23-30820        Document: 30-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                 No. 23-30820

as necessary to establish a policy based upon a pattern, see Davidson v. City of
Stafford, 848 F.3d 384, 396 (5th Cir. 2017).
       Moreover, in an order adjudicating Spann’s motion for a waiver of the
fees and costs of preparing his appeal, the presiding Bogalusa City Court
judge waived some costs, denied the waiver of others, and observed that
Spann failed to timely pay the non-waived costs; we may properly take
judicial notice of this order as a matter of public record. See Norris v. Hearst
Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007). Unlike in Williams v. Okla. City,
395 U.S. 458, 458-60 (1969), upon which Spann relies to show a violation of
his Fourteenth Amendment rights, the order does not reflect that the judge
denied a full waiver of appellate fees and costs based upon any perceived lack
of authority to grant such relief. More fundamentally, Spann did not allege
sufficient facts in his complaint to plausibly show that the two named
defendants could have granted him such a waiver in contravention of the
judge’s order. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
       Spann fails to identify a nonfrivolous issue challenging the Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal of his § 1983 suit. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Piotrowski,
237 F.3d at 578; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. He likewise fails to identify a
nonfrivolous issue regarding whether the district court abused its discretion
by denying his Rule 59(e) motion, which substantively reiterated his claims
under Monell and Williams. See Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567,
570 (5th Cir. 2019); Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, we DENY the
IFP motion and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
       Our dismissal of the appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes
of 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). In addition, Spann has a previous strike for purposes of § 1915(g).

                                       3
Case: 23-30820       Document: 30-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/28/2024

                                 No. 23-30820

Spann v. Strain, 726 F. App’x 265, 265, 267 (5th Cir. 2018). We WARN
Spann that if he accumulates a third strike, he will not be permitted to
proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See § 1915(g).

                                      4