eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-03

Lusk v. Warner ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-20755      Document: 00515761453          Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/01/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 1, 2021
No. 19-20755
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Charles E. Lusk,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Carlisietta R. Warner, Sergeant, O.B. Ellis I Unit; Alicia
Scott, Property Officer, O.B. Ellis I Unit,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-831
Before Stewart, Graves and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Charles E. Lusk, Texas prisoner # 1964427, has moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for relief from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his civil rights action.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-20755      Document: 00515761453           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/01/2021
No. 19-20755
By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, Lusk is challenging the
district court’s determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh
v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997). A motion for leave to proceed
IFP on appeal “must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the
certification decision.”
    Id. at 202
    . This court’s inquiry into 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 citation omitted).
Lusk has failed to show that he has a nonfrivolous argument that the
district court abused its discretion in determining that Lusk had failed to
identify extraordinary circumstances justifying relief and that his Rule
60(b)(6) motion had not been filed within a reasonable time. See Hess v.
Cockrell,
    281 F.3d 212
    , 215-16 (5th Cir. 2002). The motion for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh,
    117 F.3d at 
    202 n.24.
2