CODRINGTON v. VANNOY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-03No. No. 20-30460

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied Codrington's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous because he failed to address or challenge the district court's finding that his appeal lacked good faith and instead only reasserted his financial eligibility.

Edwin Codrington, an incarcerated Louisiana inmate, sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying court fees) on appeal from his dismissed civil rights lawsuit. The district court had previously allowed him to proceed in forma pauperis but refused to do so for his appeal, finding that the appeal lacked good faith. On review, Codrington argued only that he remained financially eligible to proceed without fees because his financial circumstances had not changed, but he did not actually address or challenge the district court's conclusion that his appeal was not taken in good faith.

The court found that Codrington's failure to respond to the district court's good faith determination meant he abandoned the core issue on appeal. Because he presented no arguable legal challenge to the dismissal of his underlying civil rights case, the court treated the appeal as frivolous and lacking merit. The opinion also noted that this dismissal counts as a second strike against Codrington under federal law governing in forma pauperis filings by incarcerated persons, and warned him that a third strike would bar him from proceeding without fees in future litigation while incarcerated.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an appeal lacking arguable merit by a party proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed as frivolous
Standards for good faith certification in in forma pauperis appeals
Three-strike requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for incarcerated litigants

Procedural posture

Codrington appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights complaint and the district court's refusal to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and the appellate court reviewed his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Edwin Codrington, Louisiana prisoner # 387804, moves this court fore leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Codringtons IFP motion is a challenge to the district courts determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Before this court, Codrington asserts that he is financially eligible to proceed IFP because the district court previously granted him leave to proceed IFP and his financial situation has not changed. He fails to address the district courts certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith and the district courts reasons for its certification decision. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district courts analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Codrington has failed to challenge the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith and the reasons for such a certification, and consequently fails to address the judgment dismissing his § 1983 suit, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. Id. Thus, his appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, Codringtons motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district courts dismissal of Codringtons complaint for failure to state a claim and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Codrington is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* 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.