Robert Groden v. Jackie Diane Allen , 354 F. App'x 36 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    November 11, 2009
    No. 09-10610
    Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    ROBERT J GRODEN,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    D BRADLEY KIZZIA,
    Appellee
    JACKIE DIANE ALLEN,
    Defendant-Appellee
    RICHARD B TOBIAS
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:03-CV-1685
    Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 09-10610
    Richard B. Tobias, a sanctioned litigant, moves for leave to continue his
    appeal and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the district
    court’s denial of his motion for contempt and relief from final judgment. The
    district court denied Tobias leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the
    appeal is not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Tobias is
    challenging that certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir.
    1997). Our inquiry into Tobias’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
    omitted).
    Because Tobias does not address the reasons for the district court’s
    certification decision or the basis of the district court’s denial of his motion, it is
    the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
    County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Baugh, 
    117 F.3d at 202
    . He has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on
    appeal. See Howard, 
    707 F.2d at 219-20
    . Accordingly, his motion to continue his
    appeal and to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Baugh, 
    117 F.3d at
    202 n.24.
    Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 
    707 F.2d at 219-20
    , it is
    DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10610

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 36

Judges: Haynes, King, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 11/11/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023