Alicia Lewis v. City of Waxahachie , 534 F. App'x 265 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-10731       Document: 00512298094         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/05/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 5, 2013
    No. 12-10731
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    ALICIA LEWIS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    JOE F. GRUBBS, District Attorney; SHERIFF JOHNNY BROWN,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:10-CV-2579
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Alicia Lewis, a nonprisoner, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
    (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
    for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
    In the complaint, Lewis accused the district attorney, Joe F. Grubbs, of
    defamation and alleged that Sheriff Johnny Brown violated her constitutional
    rights by allowing her to stay in a flooded cell and sleep on a wet mattress.
    Lewis’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that her
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10731     Document: 00512298094      Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/05/2013
    No. 12-10731
    appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th
    Cir. 1997).
    We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
    claim upon which relief may be granted. Frame v. City of Arlington, 
    657 F.3d 215
    , 222 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 1561
    (2012). Lewis
    contends that the district court erred in dismissing her defamation claim against
    Grubbs and her unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim against Sheriff
    Brown. She further argues that the district court erred in denying her motions
    for the recusal of the magistrate judge and the chief district judge.
    Her claims that Grubbs was biased and maliciously prosecuted her; that
    Grubbs sent her “before a grand jury without counsel and on a misdemeanor”;
    that an officer at the Wayne McCollum Detention Center (Detention Center)
    made a false statement against her; and that Sheriff Brown allowed her to be
    booked into the Detention Center without a charge are barred by res judicata
    and are not cognizable in this appeal. See Smith v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 
    407 F.3d 381
    , 386 (5th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Lewis has not addressed the district
    court’s reasons for dismissing her defamation claim or her unconstitutional
    conditions of confinement claim, nor does she address the reasons for the denials
    of her motions for recusal. By failing to identify any error in the district court’s
    analysis, Lewis has abandoned any challenge she might have raised regarding
    the district court’s decisions. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
    Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th
    Cir. 1993).
    Accordingly, Lewis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See
    Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The IFP motion is
    DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    ; 5TH CIR.
    R. 42.2. In light of this court’s prior sanction warning in Lewis v. City of
    Waxahachie, 465 F. App’x 383, 386 (5th Cir. 2012), Lewis is cautioned that the
    filing of repetitive or frivolous pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions,
    2
    Case: 12-10731     Document: 00512298094      Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/05/2013
    No. 12-10731
    which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on her ability
    to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
    IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
    ISSUED.
    3