State of Texas v. USA ( 2015 )

Case: 15-40326 Document: 00513316351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-40326
FILED
December 21, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF GEORGIA;
STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs–Appellees,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants,
MITCHELL WILLIAMS,
Movant–Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CV-254
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-40326 Document: 00513316351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-40326
Mitchell Williams requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in his appeal of the denial of his pro se motion to intervene. A movant
seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that
the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., that it presents nonfrivolous issues.
Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Frivolous is defined as
“lack[ing] an arguable basis in law or fact.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470,
472 (5th Cir. 2001). “A ruling denying intervention of right is reviewed de
novo.” Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The district court did not err in denying Williams’s request to intervene
because, inter alia, he does not have an “interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). An
intervenor fails to show a sufficient interest where he seeks to intervene solely
for economic reasons. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line
Co., 732 F.2d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Williams’s motion to intervene
was based on an asserted economic interest; thus, it was insufficient to merit
intervention of right. See id.Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2