Court Opinion

ID: 9928068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 19:00:38.465872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:47:57.107145
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20564        Document: 00517049121             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/30/2024

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               January 30, 2024
                                      No. 23-20564                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Latosha Diggles,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Donean Surratt; David Fisher; Michael J. Lindsay, In his
   individual and official capacity; Barrett Philip Lindsay, In his
   individual and official capacity; John Pat Parsons, In his individual and
   official capacity; Eric B. Dick, In his individual and official capacity;
   Judge Mitch Templeton, In his individual and official capacity;
   Judge Baylor Wortham, In his individual and official capacity;
   Dana Marshburn, In her individual and official capacity; Holly G.
   Giffin, In her individual and official capacity,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:23-CV-78
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20564      Document: 00517049121          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                    No. 23-20564

          Latosha Diggles moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
   from the dismissal, without prejudice, of the claims raised in her civil rights
   action. By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Diggles challenges the district
   court’s certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh
   v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry 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)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Because Diggles fails to raise a challenge to the dismissal of the claims
   raised in her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
   may be granted, she has abandoned any such argument. See Yohey v. Collins,
   985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As Diggles failed to obtain the
   consent of opposing parties or seek leave of court, her filing of a second
   amended complaint had “no legal effect,” U.S. ex rel. Mathews
   v. HealthSouth Corp., 332 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2003), and she cannot
   demonstrate a violation of her due process rights or other error by the district
   court with respect to this filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because
   defendant Eric B. Dick timely filed and served an answer, he did not default,
   and thus there was no basis for the district court to proceed to entry of a
   default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i); N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v.
   Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). Diggles’s conclusory assertions that
   the district court failed to correct unspecified clerical errors and abused its
   discretion are insufficient, as this court is not required to search the record
   to find a legal and factual basis for an issue that is inadequately briefed.
   United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 255-56 (5th Cir. 1998).
          As Diggles has failed to identify any issue of arguable merit, her
   motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and her appeal is DISMISSED as
   frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see also

                                          2
Case: 23-20564     Document: 00517049121          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                   No. 23-20564

   5th Cir. R. 42.2. Finally, because Diggles fails to demonstrate that a
   transcript is “necessary for proper disposition of [her] appeal,” Norton
   v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997), her motion for transcripts at
   Government expense is DENIED.

                                         3