Williams v. Collier ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20319 Document: 00516953769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 2, 2023
No. 23-20319 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Anthony Cordell Williams,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Brian Collier, Executive Director of TDCJ Institutional Division;
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; Chairman David
Guiteriez; Director Pamela Theilkie, TDCJ Parole Division;
Officer Unknown Scolfield, TDCJ Institutional Division;
Officer Unknown Medcalf, TDCJ Institutional Division;
Unknown Henderson, TDCJ Institutional Division,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:23-CV-328
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Anthony Williams, Texas prisoner # 585666, moves to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit
as frivolous and malicious. Through his motion, Williams challenges the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20319 Document: 00516953769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2023
No. 23-20319
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
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) (citation omitted).
Although the district court dismissed the suit as time-barred, Williams
does not substantively address the time-bar ruling and has therefore aban-
doned any challenge to it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993) (holding that even a pro se appellant 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 the same as if appellant had not appealed).
Because he has not shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous
issue, Williams’s 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 district court’s dismissal of the suit as frivolous and malicious and
our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2017); 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). Williams is WARNED
that if he accumulates a third strike, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP
in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g).
2