DocketNumber: 19-11227
Filed Date: 5/10/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 5/10/2021
Case: 19-11227 Document: 00515854954 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 10, 2021 No. 19-11227 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Anesha Nicolay Coleman, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Patricia Groom, American Postal Workers Union Union Representative; Louis DeJoy, United States Postmaster General; Larry Wagener, Jr., Sr. United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Installation Plant Manager; Kamalammal Pillai, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Supervisor; Geraldine Fulton, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Supervisor Tour 1 Payroll; Elvin A. Remembert, Larry Wagener’s Spokesperson; Brittany Lindsay, United States Postal Service Tort Claim Adjudicator; Gary Vaccarella, United States Postal Service Manager, Injury Compensation & Medical Services; Kyioka M. Rahim, United States Postal Service Manager, Health & Resource Management; Patricia Thigpen, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Operations Manager; James Heard, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Safety Captain; Rosemary Greer, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Safety Captain; Albert Ruiz, United States Postal Service Spokesperson; Cindy Greg, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Security; NFN Roberts, Larry Wagener’s Secretary, Defendants—Appellees. Case: 19-11227 Document: 00515854954 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2021 No. 19-11227 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:19-CV-1155 Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Anesha Coleman moves to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) from the dismissal of a civil action in which she made numerous assertions arising from a mercury spill in a U.S. Postal Service facility. By moving to appeal IFP, Coleman challenges the district court’s certification that her appeal is not in good faith. See McGarrah v. Alford,783 F.3d 584
, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). “An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous.”Id.
We may dismiss a frivolous appeal. Id.; see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 41(b) after Coleman had refused to remedy deficiencies in her complaint and in her district court IFP motion. In her responses to the court’s defici- ency notices and orders, she argued, among other things, that the magistrate judge was abusing her power and operating as the agent of a foreign principal; as a “natural person,” Coleman had the right to proceed without paying fees; and her personal data and signatures were the equivalent of currency. Cole- man also vaguely asserted that federal reserve notes are invalid. The district court recognized that a dismissal without prejudice might have the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice because of the likelihood * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2 Case: 19-11227 Document: 00515854954 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/10/2021 No. 19-11227 that Coleman would be time-barred from filing a new action. The court therefore applied a stricter standard that allows dismissal “where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and when lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.” Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit,837 F.3d 438
, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quota- tion marks and citation omitted). The court observed that, despite receiving three deficiency notices and orders and a magistrate judge’s questionnaire, Coleman had refused to provide necessary financial information to support her IFP motion. Further, the court found that her noncompliance was inten- tional; it was attributable to her alone; and no lesser sanction than dismissal would be effective. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA,975 F.2d 1188
, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992); Nottingham, 837 F.3d at 440−41. Coleman reiterates her meritless arguments. She has failed to show either financial eligibility or a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See McGarrah, 783 F.3d at 584; Carson v. Polley,689 F.2d 562
, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See McGarrah, 783 F.3d at 584−85; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 3