Joel Winsley v. Federal Express Corporation

Filing

Joel Winsley v. Federal Express Corporation

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60232

Document: 00511207380

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60232 S u m m a r y Calendar August 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J O E L WINSLEY, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. F E D E R A L EXPRESS CORPORATION, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Mississippi U S D C No. 3:06-CV-342

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J oe l Winsley has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (I F P ) on appeal. She seeks to challenge the district court's summary judgment d is m is s a l of her complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U .S .C . § 1981 and the district court's denial of her Federal Rule of Civil P r o c e d u r e 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must demonstrate that s h e is a pauper and that her appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., that she will raise
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60232

Document: 00511207380 Page: 2 No. 09-60232

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5); Carson v. Polley, 689 F .2 d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). To establish financial eligibility to proceed IFP, a movant need not show absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de

N e m o u r s & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The central question is whether the m o v a n t can afford the costs of a particular litigation without undue hardship or d e p r iv a t io n of the necessities of life. Id. at 339-40. Our inquiry into whether an a p p e a l is taken in good faith "is limited to whether the appeal involves `legal p o in ts arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).'" Howard v. King, 7 0 7 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). T h e financial information Winsley has submitted to this court indicates t h a t she should be able to pay the full $455 appellate filing fee without undue h a r d s h ip or deprivation of the necessities of life. Moreover, Winsley has not id e n tifie d any nonfrivolous issue she intends to raise regarding the district c o u r t's order granting summary judgment or the district court's denial of her R u le 59(e) motion. Winsley's motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is D E N I E D . Because Winsley's appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R . 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir.1997). M O T I O N DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.

2