Filed: Aug. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20199 Summary Calendar TIMOTHY ANTHONY REDIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-171 - - - - - - - - - - August 13, 1998 Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Timothy Anthony Redic, Texas state prisoner # 01429449, has filed an application for leave to procee
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20199 Summary Calendar TIMOTHY ANTHONY REDIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-171 - - - - - - - - - - August 13, 1998 Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Timothy Anthony Redic, Texas state prisoner # 01429449, has filed an application for leave to proceed..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20199
Summary Calendar
TIMOTHY ANTHONY REDIC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HOUSTON,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-171
- - - - - - - - - -
August 13, 1998
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Timothy Anthony Redic, Texas state prisoner # 01429449, has
filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his civil
rights suit as frivolous and malicious, and its certification that
an appeal would be frivolous. By moving for IFP, Redic is
challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not
be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith.
See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Redic has
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
also filed in this court a motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal.
Redic argues that the Houston Police Department discriminated
against him by arresting him on the basis of false accusations by
prostitutes who were not arrested for prostitution. The facts
alleged by Redic were sufficient to establish that there was
probable cause for Redic’s arrest and that his claim was therefore
meritless. See Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dep’t,
130
F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 1997).
Redic has failed to demonstrate that he is raising a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal. We therefore uphold the district
court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. Redic’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
Redic’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL
DISMISSED.