PHILLIPS BERRY v. SCURLOCK (2019)

Shanta G. Phillips-Berry moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal of the dismissal of her pro se complaint, in which she alleged that the defendants conspired to violate her civil rights by implanting her body with a monitoring device. The district court dismissed her complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), denied leave to proceed IFP, and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that she is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents nonfrivolous issues. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Although Phillips-Berry has filed an affidavit of poverty that indicates that she qualifies for IFP status, her allegations are frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). Accordingly, her motion is denied, and her appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The claims made by Phillips-Berry are repetitive of other claims she has raised, and we have affirmed the dismissal of those claims as frivolous. See Phillips-Berry v. Louisiana State, et al., No. 18-31068, 765 Fed.Appx. 88, 2019 WL 1760887 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019); Phillips-Berry v. Kenner Police Dep’t et al., 748 Fed.Appx. 633 (5th Cir. 2019); Phillips-Berry v. Trump, et al., 757 Fed.Appx. 402 (5th Cir. 2019). Phillips-Berry is cautioned that any future, frivolous filings by her in this court or any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court will invite the imposition of sanctions.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING IMPOSED.

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PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.