United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20191
Conference Calendar
JAMES GLAZIER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-3639
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Glazier, Texas prisoner # 878903, appeals the district
court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of his request for
appointment of counsel to prepare a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
The district court denied Glazier a certificate of appealability
(COA) and certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith
for purposes of appealing in forma pauperis (IFP), pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). Glazier
requests a COA and moves for leave to appeal IFP.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20191
-2-
Because Glazier did not file a habeas corpus petition, he
does not require a COA to appeal the district court’s order. See
Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.
denied, 123 S. Ct. 1208 (2003).
Glazier has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without
prejudice because Glazier failed to comply with the court’s order
to file a habeas corpus petition or suffer dismissal of the case
for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See
McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 1988).
This appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous; it
therefore is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS.