Case: 09-60232 Document: 00511207380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 18, 2010
No. 09-60232
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOEL WINSLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:06-CV-342
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joel Winsley has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal. She seeks to challenge the district court’s summary judgment
dismissal of her complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must demonstrate that
she is a pauper and that her appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., that she will raise
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-60232 Document: 00511207380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
No. 09-60232
a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. F ED. R. A PP. P. 24(a)(5); Carson v. Polley, 689
F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). To establish financial eligibility to proceed IFP,
a movant need not show absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The central question is whether the
movant can afford the costs of a particular litigation without undue hardship or
deprivation of the necessities of life. Id. at 339-40. Our inquiry into whether an
appeal is taken in 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) (citation omitted).
The financial information Winsley has submitted to this court indicates
that she should be able to pay the full $455 appellate filing fee without undue
hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. Moreover, Winsley has not
identified any nonfrivolous issue she intends to raise regarding the district
court’s order granting summary judgment or the district court’s denial of her
Rule 59(e) motion. Winsley’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED. Because Winsley’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir.1997).
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2