Lawrence Williams v. Calvin Weller ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-20138      Document: 00515223038         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/04/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-20138                       December 4, 2019
    Lyle W. Cayce
    LAWRENCE C. WILLIAMS,                                                           Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    CALVIN WELLER; CURTIS D. BRIDGES, JR.; CHARLES H. LANDIS;
    MICHAEL C. WONDERLUCH; JAMES S. COLEMAN; KATE M.
    BUCKMASTER; TAYLOR J. GREEDES; HENRY S. VICKERS; KAYANA N.
    BRANFORD; TAWARDRAS BARFIELD; DWIGHT D. SUMMERVILLE;
    CORNELLIUS R. DICKEY; MISTY COCKERHAM-WILLIAMS; EULA C.
    ENGLISH; TELIFERIO WILLIAMS, JR.; DALE SANCHEZ; ERIS S.
    VASQUEZ; KIMBERLY K. STRIBLIN; SALVADOR VILLANUEVA; TREVOR
    A. PAYNE; JOHN-MICHAEL K. PRICE; KENTRIUS L. LOCKHART;
    DELORES S. WASHINGTON; ELIZABETH NGASSA; MARK ROBERT;
    JOHN D. DUNN,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:17-CV-3905
    Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-20138     Document: 00515223038       Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/04/2019
    No. 19-20138
    Lawrence C. Williams, Texas prisoner # 2019403, filed a civil rights
    action in which he alleged that prison officials poisoned him, posted an
    inappropriate video of him on social media, retaliated against him, subjected
    him to hazardous environmental conditions, denied him adequate medical
    care, denied his grievances, and interfered with his mail. Williams moves for
    leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s order granting,
    in part, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying several of
    his pre-trial motions, including motions for the appointment of counsel and a
    preliminary injunction. The district court denied Williams leave to appeal IFP,
    certifying that the appeal is not in good faith.
    By moving to appeal IFP, Williams challenges the certification that his
    appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir.
    1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points
    arguable on their merits (and therefore [is] not frivolous).” Howard v. King,
    
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted). We may dismiss an appeal “when it is apparent that an appeal would
    be meritless.” 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    & n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    At best, we have appellate jurisdiction only over the denial of Williams’s
    motions to appoint counsel and for a preliminary injunction. See Robbins v.
    Maggio, 
    750 F.2d 405
    , 413 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Lakedreams v. Taylor, 
    932 F.2d 1103
    , 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1991). The remaining motions are not appealable.
    Cf. Askanase v. LivingWell, Inc., 
    981 F.2d 807
    , 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993)
    (discussing what orders are appealable). But in any event, Williams fails to
    identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal, and he does not address the district
    court’s reasons for denying his motions.
    Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED. See 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    .
    In addition, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous in part and for lack of
    jurisdiction in part. See 
    id. at 202
    n.24; 
    Howard, 707 F.2d at 220
    ; 5TH CIR.
    2
    Case: 19-20138    Document: 00515223038   Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/04/2019
    No. 19-20138
    R. 42.2.   Williams’s motions for remand and a stay or injunction pending
    appeal are likewise DENIED.
    3