Filed: Jun. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40002 Summary Calendar CONRAD JULES BRAUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MORRIS JOHNSON, Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CV-246 - June 6, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Conrad Jules Braun, Texas inmate # 05869-031, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from his suit seek
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40002 Summary Calendar CONRAD JULES BRAUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MORRIS JOHNSON, Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CV-246 - June 6, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Conrad Jules Braun, Texas inmate # 05869-031, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from his suit seeki..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40002
Summary Calendar
CONRAD JULES BRAUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MORRIS JOHNSON, Lieutenant,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:99-CV-246
--------------------
June 6, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Conrad Jules Braun, Texas inmate # 05869-031, has filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from his
suit seeking injunctive relief. By moving for IFP, Braun is
challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status
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). Because Braun’s appeal presents no nonfrivolous appellate
issues, the district court’s denial of IFP is AFFIRMED, and the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 00-40002
-2-
appeal is DISMISSED. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 and n.24; 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.