Court Opinion

ID: 9894553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 00:00:37.199055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:54.241351
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10721         Document: 00516952618             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10721
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               November 1, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Joyce Pipkins,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Grand Prairie Police Department; NFN Patterson,
   Officer; David Hunter, Officer,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2879
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Joyce Pipkins moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
   appeal from the district court’s dismissal of her pro se civil complaint. Her
   complaint, as clarified by her answers to the district court’s interrogatories,
   raised claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for
   violating and conspiring to violate her civil rights, as well as under Texas
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10721      Document: 00516952618          Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                    No. 23-10721

   Family Code § 52.02, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and the United States and Texas
   Constitutions.
          In her IFP motion and appellate brief, Pipkins argues that the district
   court erred by failing to apply less stringent standards to her complaint due
   to her pro se status and by applying the more stringent standard of Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However,
   she fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue, as these arguments misrepresent the
   record and misstate the applicable law. See DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145,
   152 (5th Cir. 2011); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
          Regarding her federal law claims, Pipkins contends that her claims
   alleging the denial of equal protection and due process are supported by the
   facts specifically pleaded in the complaint. This conclusory contention does
   not raise a nonfrivolous issue because it does not address the district court’s
   specific reasons for determining that she failed to state a claim under § 1983
   and § 1985, nor does it specify which facts in her complaint would otherwise
   support a due process or equal protection claim.            Thus, Pipkins has
   abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determinations regarding her
   federal law claims. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th
   Cir. 2002); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann
   v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Finally, Pipkins contends that her complaint raised substantial
   disputed federal issues and thus the district court had jurisdiction over her
   state law claims. However, because she has not demonstrated any error in
   the district court’s dismissal of her federal claims, she has not presented a
   nonfrivolous issue that this matter justified departure from the general rule
   requiring dismissal of pendent state law claims.          See Parker & Parsley
   Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992).

                                         2
Case: 23-10721    Document: 00516952618          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                  No. 23-10721

         Because Pipkins fails to show that her appeal raises a nonfrivolous
   issue, her 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); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 5th Cir.
   R. 42.2.

                                       3