Khnanisho v. Rivera, 2:22-cv-00233

Background

Plaintiff Theodore Khnanisho sued San Patricio County officials, the County Sheriff’s Department, and a private attorney under § 1983 and state law, alleging defendants failed to comply with a Texas expunction order and that this cost him law‑enforcement employment.
Plaintiff initially sought in forma pauperis (IFP) to file; his district‑court IFP application was deficient, he was ordered to show cause, then paid the filing fee and the suit was docketed.
Defendants moved to dismiss (variously for lack of jurisdiction, insufficient service, and failure to state a claim); the magistrate recommended dismissal in full and the district court entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and multiple motions to proceed IFP on appeal, claiming household income of $41,000 (spouse’s wages), $1,900 in savings, and that his arrest record prevents him from obtaining work in law enforcement.
The magistrate judge (1) declined to recuse sua sponte, (2) found Plaintiff was not indigent given household income and savings, and (3) concluded the appeal raised only frivolous issues and thus recommended denial of IFP on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument / Court Position	Held
Recusal of magistrate judge	Magistrate acted unethically and was biased	Magistrate asserts no extrajudicial bias; rulings based on record and law	Magistrate declined to recuse; no reasonable objective doubt of impartiality
Indigency for IFP on appeal	Plaintiff says he is unemployed and cannot pay; household supports three children	Household income $41,000 (spouse) and $1,900 savings; no showing that fee causes undue hardship	Denied — Plaintiff not indigent; can pay $505 filing fee
Good‑faith (nonfrivolous) appeal requirement	Plaintiff alleges multiple errors by the court and misconduct by defendants and counsel	Magistrate finds proposed appellate issues lack arguable merit or were not raised below	Denied — appeal would not be taken in good faith; issues frivolous
Sufficiency of service	Plaintiff contends service by certified mail and Rule 106 filings were proper	Rule 106 does not permit service by certified mail; no waiver of service shown	Any appeal claiming proper service is frivolous
Subject‑matter jurisdiction / expunction claim	Plaintiff asserts federal jurisdiction over expunction and state claims	No federal constitutional right to expungement; plaintiff failed to state federal claim	Dismissal of expunction/state‑law claims upheld as meritless for federal suit
New claims on appeal (tampering, open‑records)	Plaintiff seeks to raise alleged tampering and open‑records violations on appeal	These claims were not alleged in district court and cannot be raised first on appeal	Frivolous — new causes of action cannot be raised for first time on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1988) (standard for assessing indigency for IFP appeals)
Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1986) (good‑faith standard for appeals)
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (frivolous‑appeal principle for IFP determinations)
Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 130 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to expungement)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (recusal law: judicial rulings ordinarily do not establish bias)
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (pauper status requires inability to pay and still provide for dependents)
Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2000) (new claims not allowed for first time on appeal)
United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 1995) (objective reasonable‑person test for recusal)
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1988) (duty not to recuse unnecessarily)
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006) (judicial misconduct allegations alone do not require sua sponte recusal)