Wright v. Minardi ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11126 Document: 00516937671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11126
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 19, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Mack Wright; Alice Wright, Clerk
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Raymond Sam Minardi,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CV-189
______________________________
Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Raymond Sam Minardi moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s order reviving a judgment that
was issued in May 2012 against him and in favor of Mack and Alice Wright.
The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11126 Document: 00516937671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
No. 22-11126
is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
In his pro se appellate brief, Minardi raises a number of challenges to
the May 2012 judgment including that (1) the district court granted summary
judgment for the Wrights without permitting him an opportunity to respond;
(2) the Texas state court and the bankruptcy court both determined that he
had not committed any fraud or securities law violation; (3) the State of
Texas investigation into Minardi’s prior investment entity was caused by a
mistake made by a bank employee; and (4) it was Nyle Field, not Minardi,
who fraudulently induced the Wrights to invest in Minardi’s investment
entity at issue in this case. Minardi does not directly challenge the order of
revival of the May 2012 judgment. Further, the issues he raises could have
been, but were not, raised in a direct appeal of the May 2012 judgment. Thus,
he does not present a nonfrivolous challenge to the order of revival. See
Taylor v. Harris, 21 Tex. 438, 439-40 (Tex. 1858); In re Fitzgerald, 429
S.W.3d 886, 895-96 (Tex. App. 2014); see also Med. Ctr. Pharmacy v. Holder,
634 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011).
Minardi also contends that (1) the district court improperly ignored or
denied many of his post-judgment motions, (2) the district court and the
Wrights’ counsel engaged in improper tactics to collect on the May 2012
judgment, and (3) he was wrongfully held in civil contempt and detained for
failing to disclose bank records that were not subject to legal disclosure. All
of his post-judgment arguments are inadequately briefed. Although pro se
briefs are afforded liberal constructions, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments and reasonably
comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, see
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
Case: 22-11126 Document: 00516937671 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
No. 22-11126
As Minardi has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on
appeal, his appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Minardi’s motions for IFP and for waiver
of fees are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
3