IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50350
Summary Calendar
RUSSELL EUGENE GALER, II,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-00-CV-034
--------------------
September 1, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Russell Eugene Galer, II, now Texas prisoner #315395, has
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for a
certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the
district court’s interlocutory order denying his application for
injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Galer has also filed a
“Summary of Complaint,” which is construed as a motion for
injunction pending appeal.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-50350
-2-
To obtain leave to appeal IFP, Galer must show that his
appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson v. Dallas
Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Galer, however,
has not done so in the instant case. Although Galer challenges
the denial of his application for injunction, he failed to
establish in the district court that there existed either a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial
threat that the failure to grant the injunction would result in
irreparable injury, both of which are part of the requisite
showing to obtain an injunction. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932
F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).
Because Galer has not shown that the district court erred in
denying his application for injunction, his appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, his IFP application is DENIED.
See Jackson, 811 F.2d at 261. His COA application is also
DENIED, to the extent that one is required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604
(2000). Finally, his motion for an injunction pending appeal is
DENIED. Because Galer’s appeal is without arguable merit, we
DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR R. 42.2.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.