Selver v. Ford Motor Credit Co ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-11044
    Summary Calendar
    DAVID SELVER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:02-CV-1667
    --------------------
    January 24, 2003
    Before JOLLY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    David Selver, # 160221, moves for leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis (IFP) and challenges the district court’s certification
    that his appeal is not taken in good faith.       See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).   Selver challenges the district court’s
    determination that diversity of citizenship between the parties
    was lacking.    See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    .    Selver repeatedly alleged in
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 02-11044
    -2-
    the district court and he argues on appeal that the sole named
    defendant, the Ford Motor Credit Company, is a Texas company;
    Selver does not dispute that he is a Texas resident.    Selver
    failed to allege sufficient facts in his pleadings establishing
    diversity of citizenship.   The district court properly dismissed
    the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.     See Getty
    Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. America,
    
    841 F.2d 1254
    , 1258 (5th Cir. 1988); Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
    
    945 F.2d 803
    , 804-06 (5th Cir. 1991).
    Selver’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
    Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).    Selver’s
    IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed.
    IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.