Case: 13-50862 Document: 00512723310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 13-50862
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar August 5, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
MICHAEL HAENDEL, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
M. DIGIANTONIO; THOMAS EATON,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CV-7
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Michael Haendel filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress
for actions connected to his January 2011 arrest. The district court granted
the defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion, dismissed the
suit, and denied Haendel authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal. Now, Haendel moves this court for IFP status, thereby challenging the
district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50862 Document: 00512723310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2014
No. 13-50862
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into Haendel’s
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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Haendel has not met this standard. There is little in his opening and
reply briefs that relates to the district court’s judgment dismissing his suit.
The majority of the briefs consists of recitations of various facts and law that
do not relate to the district court’s judgment. Those few bits of the briefs that
do mention various aspects of the district court’s judgment, such as Haendel’s
assertion that qualified immunity is not absolute immunity, do not suffice to
show a nonfrivolous appellate claim.
This appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard, 707
F.3d at 225. Consequently, Haendel's IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal
is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2