Court Opinion

ID: 9388021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:00:43.127833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.999881
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20297         Document: 00516717300             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/19/2023

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

                                       No. 22-20297
                                                                               FILED
                                                                           April 19, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   Raymond E. Carr,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   City of Houston; Troy Finner; Kim Ogg; Scott
   Antowelle; P. R. Tyler, Et al.

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CV-188
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Raymond E. Carr filed a pro se civil complaint while he was released
   from detention pursuant to a pretrial bond. The district court dismissed the
   lawsuit without prejudice after Carr failed to comply with its repeated orders
   to cure what the court viewed as misjoinder in Carr’s proposed complaints.
   He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20297      Document: 00516717300          Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20297

   court’s dismissal. He additionally moves for the appointment of counsel, for
   injunctive relief pending appeal, for release pending appeal and an expedited
   ruling on the motion for release, and for compulsory mediation.
          By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Carr is challenging the district
   court’s certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of
   Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See
   Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The inquiry into whether
   an appeal is taken in good faith requires a brief consideration of the merits; a
   colorable claim—one that involves legal points arguable on the merits—is not
   frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220–21 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
          Carr has failed to brief any argument that addresses the district court’s
   reasons for dismissing the suit and certifying that the appeal is not taken in
   good faith. He has therefore abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
   certification decision, see Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
   F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and failed to show that his appeal involves any
   arguably meritorious issues, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because he has not
   shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, we DENY his motion to
   proceed IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
   202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          We also DENY his motion for the appointment of counsel because he
   has not shown that his challenge to the certification decision presents
   exceptional circumstances that warrant appointing him counsel on appeal.
   See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991)
   (per curiam). Further, we DENY his motion for injunctive relief pending
   appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A), (2)(A); Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d
   200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963) (per curiam). His remaining motions likewise are
   DENIED.

                                              2
Case: 22-20297      Document: 00516717300          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20297

          Carr is WARNED that future frivolous filings will invite the
   imposition of sanctions, which may include monetary sanctions or limits on
   his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction.

                                              3