Court Opinion

ID: 9926831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 19:00:46.301821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.171873
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10422         Document: 00517044160             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/25/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10422
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               January 25, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Candace Searcy,                                                                     Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Progressive Insurance,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2803
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Candace Searcy moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
   following the district court’s dismissal of her private civil action for lack of
   subject matter jurisdiction. Through her motion, Searcy challenges the
   district court’s 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

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10422      Document: 00517044160           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/25/2024

                                     No. 23-10422

   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) (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)).
          Searcy does not substantively address the district court’s
   jurisdictional analysis.    Instead, she asserts, without citation to any
   supporting legal authority, that she is entitled to a default judgment because
   the caption of the motion misidentifies the court division in which it was filed,
   despite that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed in the proper court.
   She has thus abandoned any arguments challenging the district court’s
   dismissal of her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Yohey v.
   Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellants
   must brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
   Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (observing that failure to
   identify any error in district court’s analysis is same as if appellant had not
   appealed). And without jurisdiction, the court cannot consider the merits of
   the case. See Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d 380, 388 (5th Cir.
   2014). Because she has not shown that her appeal involves a nonfrivolous
   issue, Searcy’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, all of her other
   outstanding motions are DENIED, and her appeal is DISMISSED as
   frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                          2