United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11277
Summary Calendar
JOHN T. ESPINOZA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARLINGTON NATIONAL BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-574-Y
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John T. Espinoza has filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with a
court order requiring him to file an amended complaint. By
moving for leave to proceed IFP, Espinoza is challenging the
district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on
appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-11277
-2-
Espinoza has not made a meritorious challenge to the
district court’s denial of IFP and has not shown that he will
raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). Espinoza’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and
his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
& n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All of Espinoza’s other outstanding
motions are likewise DENIED.
Espinoza is also cautioned that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To
avoid sanctions, Espinoza should review any newly filed appeals
to ensure that they are not frivolous.
IFP MOTION AND ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED. APPEAL
DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING GIVEN.