Coleman v. Groom ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-11227    Document: 00515854954       Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/10/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 10, 2021
    No. 19-11227                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
    Anesha Nicolay Coleman,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Patricia Groom, American Postal Workers Union Union Representative;
    Louis DeJoy, United States Postmaster General; Larry Wagener,
    Jr., Sr. United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Installation Plant
    Manager; Kamalammal Pillai, United States Postal Service North
    Texas P&DC Supervisor; Geraldine Fulton, United States Postal
    Service North Texas P&DC Supervisor Tour 1 Payroll; Elvin A.
    Remembert, Larry Wagener’s Spokesperson; Brittany Lindsay,
    United States Postal Service Tort Claim Adjudicator; Gary Vaccarella,
    United States Postal Service Manager, Injury Compensation & Medical
    Services; Kyioka M. Rahim, United States Postal Service Manager,
    Health & Resource Management; Patricia Thigpen, United States
    Postal Service North Texas P&DC Operations Manager; James Heard,
    United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Safety Captain; Rosemary
    Greer, United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Safety Captain;
    Albert Ruiz, United States Postal Service Spokesperson; Cindy Greg,
    United States Postal Service North Texas P&DC Security; NFN Roberts,
    Larry Wagener’s Secretary,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Case: 19-11227       Document: 00515854954             Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/10/2021
    No. 19-11227
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    No. 3:19-CV-1155
    Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Anesha Coleman moves to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) from the
    dismissal of a civil action in which she made numerous assertions arising from
    a mercury spill in a U.S. Postal Service facility. By moving to appeal IFP,
    Coleman challenges the district court’s certification that her appeal is not in
    good faith. See McGarrah v. Alford, 
    783 F.3d 584
    , 584 (5th Cir. 2015). “An
    appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal points that are arguable on the
    merits and thus nonfrivolous.” 
    Id.
     We may dismiss a frivolous appeal. Id.;
    see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
    The district court dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
    dure 41(b) after Coleman had refused to remedy deficiencies in her complaint
    and in her district court IFP motion. In her responses to the court’s defici-
    ency notices and orders, she argued, among other things, that the magistrate
    judge was abusing her power and operating as the agent of a foreign principal;
    as a “natural person,” Coleman had the right to proceed without paying fees;
    and her personal data and signatures were the equivalent of currency. Cole-
    man also vaguely asserted that federal reserve notes are invalid.
    The district court recognized that a dismissal without prejudice might
    have the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice because of the likelihood
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
    ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
    set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    2
    Case: 19-11227      Document: 00515854954          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/10/2021
    No. 19-11227
    that Coleman would be time-barred from filing a new action. The court
    therefore applied a stricter standard that allows dismissal “where there is a
    clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and when
    lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.” Nottingham v.
    Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 
    837 F.3d 438
    , 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quota-
    tion marks and citation omitted). The court observed that, despite receiving
    three deficiency notices and orders and a magistrate judge’s questionnaire,
    Coleman had refused to provide necessary financial information to support
    her IFP motion. Further, the court found that her noncompliance was inten-
    tional; it was attributable to her alone; and no lesser sanction than dismissal
    would be effective. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 
    975 F.2d 1188
    , 1191
    (5th Cir. 1992); Nottingham, 837 F.3d at 440−41.
    Coleman reiterates her meritless arguments. She has failed to show
    either financial eligibility or a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See McGarrah,
    783 F.3d at 584; Carson v. Polley, 
    689 F.2d 562
    , 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The IFP
    motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
    McGarrah, 783 F.3d at 584−85; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-11227

Filed Date: 5/10/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/10/2021