Clovis Prince v. Michelle Chow

Case: 16-41158 Document: 00514103404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 16-41158 FILED
August 4, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
In the Matter of: CLOVIS PRINCE, Clerk

Debtor

CLOVIS PRINCE,

Appellant

v.

MICHELLE CHOW; WAYNE STONE; LARRY ALAN LEVICK; TODD ALAN
HOODENPYLE; MATTHEW M. RYAN,

Appellees
______________________________________________

CLOVIS PRINCE

Appellant

v.

MICHELLE H. CHOW, Trustee; WAYNE STONE; MATTHEW M. RYAN,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CV-417
USDC No. 4:16-CV-30

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
 Case: 16-41158 Document: 00514103404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2017

No. 16-41158

PER CURIAM: *
Clovis Prince moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from
the district court’s dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy
court’s orders of dismissal entered in two adversary proceedings. He is
challenging 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).
Prince’s conclusional assertions of error by the district court, without
citation to the record or cogent legal argument, do not show that his appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits and that it is not frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Although pro se briefs are
liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se
litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Prince has not shown any error
in the dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy court on
account of his failure to pay the filing fees. Nor has he shown any error in the
district court’s determination that his claims are in essence a collateral attack
on the valid and binding summary judgment issued by the bankruptcy court,
avoiding the fraudulent transfers of certain real property.
Because the district court did not err in determining that the appeal was
not taken in good faith, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. As Prince’s appeal is without arguable merit, see
Howard, 707 F.2d at 220, it is DISMISSED as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Prince’s alternative request to withdraw his appeal without prejudice is

* 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.

2
 Case: 16-41158 Document: 00514103404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2017

No. 16-41158

DENIED. The motion to dismiss, incorporated in the response filed by Wayne
Stone and Matthew M. Ryan, is DENIED as unnecessary.

3