Case: 20-30523 Document: 00516099351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 18, 2021
No. 20-30523
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Marion Taylor,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
James M. LeBlanc; Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State
Penitentiary; Joe Lamartiniere, AW4/jk; Tim Delany, AW2/16,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:17-CV-1699
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Marion Taylor, Louisiana prisoner # 558611, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Taylor does not challenge the
district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and has,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30523 Document: 00516099351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2021
No. 20-30523
therefore, abandoned any such challenge. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Taylor challenges the district
court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “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 citations omitted). We review de novo the
dismissal of Taylor’s § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim using the
same standard applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Praylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 430 F.3d 1208, 1208 (5th
Cir. 2005). “[E]ven for pro se plaintiffs, . . . conclusory allegations or legal
conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to state a
claim for relief.” Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th
Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As the district court correctly observed, Taylor failed to allege facts
showing that the defendants impeded or frustrated his ability to file a
nonfrivolous legal claim. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).
His conclusory allegations, both in his complaint and on appeal, are not
sufficient to state a claim. See Coleman, 858 F.3d at 309. Taylor has failed to
identify any issue of arguable merit. Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.
Accordingly, Taylor’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED,
and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to a prior decision that we issued while this appeal was pending,
Taylor remains barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed
in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28
2
Case: 20-30523 Document: 00516099351 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/18/2021
No. 20-30523
U.S.C. § 1915(g); Taylor v. LeBlanc, 851 F. App’x 502, 503 (5th Cir. 2021).
He is again WARNED that any pending or future frivolous or repetitive
filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction may
subject him to additional sanctions.
3