Pipkins v. Grand Prairie Plce Dept ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10721
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 1, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Joyce Pipkins, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Grand Prairie Police Department; NFN Patterson,
Officer; David Hunter, Officer,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CV-2879
______________________________
Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Joyce Pipkins moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal from the district court’s dismissal of her pro se civil complaint. Her
complaint, as clarified by her answers to the district court’s interrogatories,
raised claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for
violating and conspiring to violate her civil rights, as well as under Texas
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-10721
Family Code § 52.02, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and the United States and Texas
Constitutions.
In her IFP motion and appellate brief, Pipkins argues that the district
court erred by failing to apply less stringent standards to her complaint due
to her pro se status and by applying the more stringent standard of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However,
she fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue, as these arguments misrepresent the
record and misstate the applicable law. See DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145,
152 (5th Cir. 2011); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Regarding her federal law claims, Pipkins contends that her claims
alleging the denial of equal protection and due process are supported by the
facts specifically pleaded in the complaint. This conclusory contention does
not raise a nonfrivolous issue because it does not address the district court’s
specific reasons for determining that she failed to state a claim under § 1983
and § 1985, nor does it specify which facts in her complaint would otherwise
support a due process or equal protection claim. Thus, Pipkins has
abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determinations regarding her
federal law claims. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th
Cir. 2002); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann
v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Finally, Pipkins contends that her complaint raised substantial
disputed federal issues and thus the district court had jurisdiction over her
state law claims. However, because she has not demonstrated any error in
the district court’s dismissal of her federal claims, she has not presented a
nonfrivolous issue that this matter justified departure from the general rule
requiring dismissal of pendent state law claims. See Parker & Parsley
Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
Case: 23-10721 Document: 00516952618 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-10721
Because Pipkins fails to show that her appeal raises a nonfrivolous
issue, her motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th
Cir. 1997); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
3