Carter v. Dallas County ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10325 Document: 00516652590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10325
____________ FILED
February 22, 2023
Shamarcus Torrell Carter, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Dallas County Sheriff’s Department,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CV-2723
______________________________
Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Shamarcus Torrell Carter, Texas prisoner # 2278813, has filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal
of his civil rights complaint. Carter’s IFP motion 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). This court’s inquiry into whether
the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10325 Document: 00516652590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2023
No. 22-10325
‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’”
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
The district court concluded that Carter’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel and his claims of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct
were barred by judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Carter fails to raise any issue relevant to the
district court’s ruling. Because Carter fails to brief any challenge to the
district court’s reasons for dismissing his civil rights action, the issues are
abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993);
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Carter does not make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous
issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion to
proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532,
537 (2015). Carter is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will
not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
2