Case: 20-11151 Document: 00516170979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 18, 2022
No. 20-11151
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Noel Valdez Andrade,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Amarillo Police Department and Police Officers;
Brittany Daniels, APD Property Evidence; Steven J. Deal;
Cameron Kent Camarillo; Thomas L. Hightower,
Sergeant; Laura Hernandez; Chief of Police; Potter
County Sheriff Department and Staff; Brian Thomas,
Sheriff; NFN Young, Deputy; NFN Conner, Deputy; NFN
Hernandez, Deputy; Potter County Detention Center
Staff; The Grand Jury for Potter County; Texas
Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory; Jordan
Allec, Forensic Scientist; District Attorney Office and
Staff; Randall Sims, District Attorney; Justin Sanders, District
Attorney; Richard Martindale, District Attorney; Carley
Snider, Potter County District Court Clerk; Nancy Esparza, Potter
County Clerk; Pamela C. Sirmon, 320th District Court Judge,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CV-152
Case: 20-11151 Document: 00516170979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 20-11151
Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Noel Valdez Andrade, formerly Texas prisoner # 2266633, requests
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the district court’s
dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Valdez Andrade
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). Thus, his request
“must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the certification
decision.” Id. We may dismiss the appeal “when it is apparent that an appeal
would be meritless.” Id. at 202 & n.24; see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Valdez Andrade’s vague challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction
and its detailed ruling fail to identify “legal points arguable on their merits”
for appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). His motion to proceed IFP on appeal
is, therefore, DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous of Valdez Andrade’s complaint count as strikes under
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 536-37
(2015). Valdez Andrade is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three
strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
*
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.
2