Charles Andrus v. Lorie Davis, Director


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-20722 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 08/24/2017; granting motion to file appellant's supp brief filed by Appellant Mr. Charles R. Andrus [8459686-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Charles R. Andrus [8355891-2] [16-20722]

Download PDF
Case: 16-20722 Document: 00514101558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20722 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 3, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CHARLES R. ANDRUS, Petitioner−Appellant, versus LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent−Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-968 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Andrus, Texas prisoner # 1249907, moves to proceed in forma 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20722 Document: 00514101558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 No. 16-20722 pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of a motion seeking authorization, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, to withdraw his state pleas of nolo contendere to aggravated robbery and burglary of a habitation. Andrus has moved for leave to file a supplemental brief. By moving for IFP status in this court, Andrus is challenging the district court’s certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s “inquiry is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Andrus has failed to identify any errors in the district court’s analysis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that plaintiff’s failure to identify any error was “the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”). Although this court liberally construes pro se filings, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Andrus has therefore failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. The motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. Andrus’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. at 219−20. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. CIR. R. 42.2. 2 See id. See 5TH

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?