United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 26, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30208
Summary Calendar
BARBARA HOOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOLORES LINDSEY; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DOLORES LINDSEY; FRIENDS OF WWOZ, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-2926-I
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barbara Hoover has moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and for preparation of hearing transcripts at
government expense, relative to her appeal of a judgment for the
defendants in this employment-discrimination and civil-rights
action. In her action, Hoover challenged the termination of her
employment by WWOZ, a New Orleans not-for-profit radio station,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30208
-2-
as an underwriter who sold air-time and as an on-air host. Also
made a defendant was appellee Dolores Lindsey, who was WWOZ’s
underwriting manager.
The district court dismissed the following claims alleged by
Hoover: (1) sex discrimination claims against WWOZ and Lindsey;
(2) a race discrimination claim against Lindsey; (3) an age
discrimination claim against Lindsey; (4) Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claims against WWOZ and Lindsey; (5) 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claims against both, for mail fraud and/or tampering; and
(6) claims against both under the Equal pay Act, 29 U.S.C
§ 206(d). After a hearing, the court dismissed Hoover’s
remaining race and age discrimination claims against WWOZ, on
grounds that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Greenlees v. Eidenmuller Enterprises, Inc., 32 F.3d 197, 198-99
(5th Cir. 1994).
To be entitled to proceed IFP in this court, Hoover must
show that she is a pauper and that she will present a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d
562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Although it appears that Hoover is
financially eligible to proceed IFP, she has not identified a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Nor has she set forth factual
allegations and legal arguments to demonstrate that she will
raise nonfrivolous issues on appeal. Accordingly, Hoover’s IFP
motion is DENIED.
No. 03-30208
-3-
Hoover is not entitled to transcripts at government expense
because she has not been granted leave to proceed IFP and she has
not shown why she needs the transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f);
Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, her motion for transcripts at government expense is
DENIED.
Because we have concluded on this review that the appeal is
frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.