DOBBINS v. DAVIS (2019)

Ruben L. Dobbins, Texas prisoner # 319203, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court's order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized successive. The district court denied Dobbins's IFP motion.

In his brief, Dobbins argues only the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Although pro se filings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), an appellant's failure to identify any error in the district court's legal analysis is “the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 n.9 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) ). Because Dobbins has not identified any error in the district court's transfer order, we “deem that challenge to have been abandoned.” Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426 n.24 (5th Cir. 2011).

Because Dobbins abandoned the only issue raised on appeal, he has failed to show that this appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Dobbins's motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.