Andrade v. Amarillo Plce Dept
20-11151
| 5th Cir. | Jan 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Noel Valdez Andrade, a pro se, formerly incarcerated litigant, filed a civil-rights suit naming numerous law‑enforcement, prosecutorial, and court actors.
- The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith.
- Andrade moved in this Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which functionally challenged the district court’s certification.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the IFP certification under the standard in Baugh v. Taylor, limiting review to the district court’s stated reasons for certification.
- Andrade’s appellate filings presented vague jurisdictional objections and did not identify legal points arguable on their merits. The Fifth Circuit found the appeal meritless, denied IFP, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.
- The court held that the dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and cautioned Andrade about the three‑strike bar on future IFP filings absent imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to permit IFP on appeal (good‑faith certification) | Andrade challenged the district court’s jurisdiction and rulings and sought IFP on appeal | District court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith because it lacked arguable legal points | IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether the appeal raises legal points arguable on the merits | Andrade asserted vague challenges but did not identify arguable legal points | The appeal is meritless and fails to present legal points for appeal | Court found no arguable legal points; appeal is frivolous |
| Proper scope of appellate review of certification | Andrade attempted broad challenge to district court’s jurisdiction and ruling | Review is limited to the trial court’s reasons for certifying the appeal (per Baugh) | Court applied Baugh standard and dismissed when appeal plainly meritless |
| Effect of dismissal on § 1915(g) strike count | Andrade did not show imminent danger or that dismissal should not count | Dismissal as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g) | Dismissal counts as a strike; warned about three‑strike bar absent imminent danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (appellate review of an IFP certification is limited to the trial court’s reasons for certification)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff must identify legal points arguable on their merits to avoid dismissal)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g))
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 (2015) (clarifies aspects of § 1915(g) application; limited abrogation of prior precedent)