Case: 12-10216 Document: 00512057427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 19, 2012
No. 12-10216
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MAYFORD KENNETH DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-587
Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Government, through the United States Attorney General at the
request of the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a delegate
of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7402
seeking to invalidate the filing of false documents in the public records against
IRS employees by Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr. The district court considered the
matter and invalidated all of the specified filings upon the public record. The
district court gave Davis 30 days to file a list of any documents he contends were
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 12-10216 Document: 00512057427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2012
No. 12-10216
valid and filed properly. The district court also enjoined Davis from any future
such filings against federal employees. Davis filed a notice of appeal but did not
file any lists of documents in accordance with the district court’s order.
The district court denied Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); see also FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). Davis now moves this court for
leave to proceed IFP. His motion constitutes a challenge to 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 into a litigant’s good faith “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 citation omitted).
Davis does not address the district court’s certification decision in any
meaningful way. Because Davis has failed to challenge the specific reasons for
the district court’s decision or show that the appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue,
the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Howard, 707 F.2d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2