Redic v. City of Houston ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-20199
    Summary Calendar
    TIMOTHY ANTHONY REDIC,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF HOUSTON,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-98-CV-171
    - - - - - - - - - -
    August 13, 1998
    Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:1
    Timothy Anthony Redic, Texas state prisoner # 01429449, has
    filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
    on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his civil
    rights suit as frivolous and malicious, and its certification that
    an appeal would be frivolous.      By moving for IFP, Redic is
    challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not
    be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith.
    See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).   Redic has
    1
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    also filed in this court a motion for appointment of counsel on
    appeal.
    Redic argues that the Houston Police Department discriminated
    against him by arresting him on the basis of false accusations by
    prostitutes who were not arrested for prostitution.             The facts
    alleged by Redic were sufficient to establish that there was
    probable cause for Redic’s arrest and that his claim was therefore
    meritless.   See Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dep’t, 
    130 F.3d 162
    , 165 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Redic   has   failed   to   demonstrate   that   he   is   raising   a
    nonfrivolous issue on appeal.       We therefore uphold the district
    court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good
    faith. Redic’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is
    DISMISSED as frivolous.     See 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    n.24; 5TH CIR.
    R. 42.2.
    Redic’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
    IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL
    DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-20199

Filed Date: 8/20/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014