Felicia Jones v. U.S. Postal Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [13-20275 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 04/07/2014; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Ms. Felicia N. Jones [7384589-2] [13-20275]

Case: 13-20275

Document: 00512532055

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/13/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-20275
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
February 13, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

FELICIA N. JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-MC-634

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Felicia N. Jones, who is subject to a preclusion order in the Southern
District of Texas, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to
appeal the district court’s order denying her motion seeking “reconsideration”
of the court’s order denying her motion for leave to file a complaint and to
appeal the district court’s subsequent order striking additional motions.
Because Jones has failed to present any coherent challenge to the district

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 13-20275

Document: 00512532055

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/13/2014

No. 13-20275
court’s orders, she has “effectively abandoned” those claims. Mapes v. Bishop,
541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Jones has not shown that her appeal
“involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’”
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Jones’s
motion to proceed IFP is denied.

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
This court has issued two prior sanction warnings to Jones, warning her
that any future frivolous pleadings filed by her in this court or in any court
subject to the jurisdiction of this court would subject her to sanctions and
instructing Jones to review any pending matters to ensure that they are not
frivolous. See Jones v. Greenway Mercedes, 534 F. App’x 244 (5th Cir. 2013);
Jones v. Vouitton, No. 12-20562, 2013 WL 5916782, at *1 (5th Cir. May 28,
2013) (unpublished).

In the light of Jones’s failure to heed our previous

warnings, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. Jones is ordered to pay
$100 to the clerk of this court. Until this sanction is paid in full, Jones is barred
from filing, in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, any
pleading without first seeking and obtaining leave of the forum court. Jones
is warned that future frivolous filings will invite the imposition of progressively
more severe sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and
restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject
to this court’s jurisdiction. Jones should review any pending matters and move
to dismiss any that are frivolous.
APPEAL

DISMISSED

AS

FRIVOLOUS;

MOTION

SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

DENIED;