Charlie Spears v. Shelton Scales
689 F. App'x 293
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charlie Spears, a Louisiana inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint that the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Spears moved in the Fifth Circuit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court’s certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
- Spears’ appellate filings alleged denial of First Amendment and access-to-courts rights, inability to pay the filing fee, discrimination based on poverty and pro se status, and judicial bias in favor of the state.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Spears’ appeal presented legal points arguable on their merits (i.e., non-frivolous) and whether the district court’s actions showed bias or other error.
- The court found Spears failed to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, offered no evidence of bias, and did not brief grounds preserving substantive arguments.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the appeal was frivolous, denied IFP, dismissed the appeal, and warned Spears that this dismissal and the underlying dismissal each count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal may proceed IFP (good-faith certification) | Spears asserted denial violated First Amendment and access to courts; he lacks money | District court certified appeal not in good faith because complaint failed to state a claim | Appeal does not involve legal points arguable on the merits; IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether district court decision showed bias | Spears claimed judge was biased for the state | Defendants: dismissal was a reasoned ruling, not evidence of bias | No evidence of judicial bias; rulings against a party do not infer bias |
| Whether Spears preserved and identified errors in dismissal | Spears made general complaints but did not challenge district court’s legal analysis | Defendants: plaintiff failed to identify any legal errors or preserve issues | Spears failed to brief or identify errors; appellate review finds no arguable error |
| Effect of dismissal on § 1915(g) strikes | Spears argued inability to pay and challenged IFP denial | Court: dismissals for failure to state a claim by prisoners count as strikes | Dismissal of complaint and dismissal of frivolous appeal each count as strikes; warned about three-strike bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for IFP good-faith certification review)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (appeal must involve legal points arguable on their merits)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (definition of frivolous appeals and counsel duties)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant must identify errors to preserve appellate review)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (liberal construction of pro se filings does not relieve briefing requirements)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (U.S. 2015) (prisoner dismissals for failure to state a claim count as strikes under § 1915(g))