Silver v. Bexar Cty Dist Attorney's Off

Case: 19-50576 Document: 00515685547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/24/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-50576 December 24, 2020
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Frederick Omoyuma Silver,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bexar County District Attorney’s Office; San Antonio
Police Department; Bexar County Sheriff’s Office;
City of San Antonio; Michael Garcia, San Antonio Police
Officer; Officer J. Alvarez; Officer J. Diaz; C. Ortiz,
Officer; Dickerson Stephen, Officer; Samuel Lyles;
Shawntia Lakia Saunders; Gregory Saunders,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CV-337
Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-50576 Document: 00515685547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/24/2020
No. 19-50576
Frederick Omoyuma Silver moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to
remand and for sanctions against the defendants and its dismissal of his case.
Silver contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to remand
to state court because there was no sufficient ground for removal. He argues
that the district court should have granted his motion for sanctions against
the defendants for erroneously removing the case to federal court.
By moving to proceed IFP, Silver is challenging the district court’s
certification that this appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith
“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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Silver cited and relied upon the U.S. Constitution on numerous
occasions in his complaint and, thus, made substantial federal claims that
attached jurisdiction to the federal court. See Maroney v. Univ. Interscholastic
League, 764 F.2d 403, 405-06 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court therefore
did not err in denying Silver’s motion to remand the case to state court. See
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946); Maroney, 764 F.2d at 405-06. As
Silver’s appeal sets forth no issue of arguable merit, it is frivolous. See
Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20.
Accordingly, Silver’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d
at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Silver is WARNED that future frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions,
which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his
ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s
jurisdiction.
2