Rodriguez v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-40811 USDC No. B-94-CV-330 __________________ GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, SR.; JOSE RODRIGUEZ; HORTENCIA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LISA GRIFFIS, Deputy U.S. Marshal; RAY PREWETT, President, Valley AG Insurance Service, Incorporation; HERB HOOT, Insurance Coordinator, Valley AG Insurance Service, Incorporation; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; VALLEY AG INSURANCE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees. ---------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ---------- March 5, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George Rodriguez, Sr., appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants in a suit filed by Rodriguez and two other plaintiffs challenging a civil forfeiture. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Rodriguez has filed a request with this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To prevail upon his IFP motion, Rodriguez must demonstrate * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-40811 -2- that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Rodriguez challenges the seizure of an insurance policy, arguing that he was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to the cancellation of the policy and that the policy was improperly cancelled prior to entry of the order of civil forfeiture. This is not a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See magistrate judge's report of June 20, 1995. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the APPEAL is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.