Carr v. City of Houston

Case: 22-20297 Document: 00516717300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20297
FILED
April 19, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Raymond E. Carr,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
City of Houston; Troy Finner; Kim Ogg; Scott
Antowelle; P. R. Tyler, Et al.
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-188
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Raymond E. Carr filed a pro se civil complaint while he was released
from detention pursuant to a pretrial bond. The district court dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice after Carr failed to comply with its repeated orders
to cure what the court viewed as misjoinder in Carr’s proposed complaints.
He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20297 Document: 00516717300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2023
No. 22-20297
court’s dismissal. He additionally moves for the appointment of counsel, for
injunctive relief pending appeal, for release pending appeal and an expedited
ruling on the motion for release, and for compulsory mediation.
By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Carr is challenging the district
court’s certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The inquiry into whether
an appeal is taken in good faith requires a brief consideration of the merits; a
colorable claim—one that involves legal points arguable on the merits—is not
frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220–21 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
Carr has failed to brief any argument that addresses the district court’s
reasons for dismissing the suit and certifying that the appeal is not taken in
good faith. He has therefore abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
certification decision, see Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and failed to show that his appeal involves any
arguably meritorious issues, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because he has not
shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, we DENY his motion to
proceed IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We also DENY his motion for the appointment of counsel because he
has not shown that his challenge to the certification decision presents
exceptional circumstances that warrant appointing him counsel on appeal.
See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991)
(per curiam). Further, we DENY his motion for injunctive relief pending
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A), (2)(A); Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d
200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963) (per curiam). His remaining motions likewise are
DENIED.
2
Case: 22-20297 Document: 00516717300 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2023
No. 22-20297
Carr is WARNED that future frivolous filings will invite the
imposition of sanctions, which may include monetary sanctions or limits on
his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
jurisdiction.
3