Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30808 Conference Calendar ANGELA M. BOUTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE W. BUSH, Jr., President of the United States; RICHARD B. CHENEY, Vice President of the United States; MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. Senator; MARC H. MORIAL, Mayor; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; MICHELLE M. MORIAL; WWL TELEVISION STATION; T. LAMAR TEAFORD, Dr.; LAKELAND MEDICAL CENTER; KAMRAN ZAHERI, M.D.; TENET HEALTH SYSTEM MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED PA
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30808 Conference Calendar ANGELA M. BOUTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE W. BUSH, Jr., President of the United States; RICHARD B. CHENEY, Vice President of the United States; MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. Senator; MARC H. MORIAL, Mayor; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; MICHELLE M. MORIAL; WWL TELEVISION STATION; T. LAMAR TEAFORD, Dr.; LAKELAND MEDICAL CENTER; KAMRAN ZAHERI, M.D.; TENET HEALTH SYSTEM MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED PAR..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30808
Conference Calendar
ANGELA M. BOUTTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE W. BUSH, Jr., President of the United States;
RICHARD B. CHENEY, Vice President of the United States;
MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. Senator; MARC H. MORIAL, Mayor; CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS; MICHELLE M. MORIAL; WWL TELEVISION STATION; T. LAMAR
TEAFORD, Dr.; LAKELAND MEDICAL CENTER; KAMRAN ZAHERI, M.D.; TENET
HEALTH SYSTEM MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED
PARTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-661-R
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Angela Boutte has filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and a motion to expedite her appeal of the
district court’s dismissal of her civil complaint as frivolous.
A district court may deny a motion for leave to appeal IFP
by certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and by
providing written reasons for the certification. See Baugh v.
Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The appellant may challenge
the district court's certification decision by filing in this
O R D E R
No. 01-30808
- 2 -
court a motion for leave to proceed IFP.
Id. at 202; Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(5). The motion, however, "must be directed
solely to the trial court's reasons for the certification
decision." See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.
Boutte’s motion does not challenge the district court’s
certification that the appeal was not taken in good faith, as is
required. It is therefore DENIED.
If the merits of the appeal are "inextricably intertwined
with the certification decision," we may determine both issues.
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Our inquiry into an appellant's good
faith" 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).
Probable success on the merits is not required.
Id.
Boutte has failed to show that her appeal involves
nonfrivolous legal issues. Her claims are “inextricably
intertwined” with the district court’s certification decision,
and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous in the
interest of judicial economy. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. Boutte’s motion to expedite appeal is DENIED as
moot.
Motion for IFP status DENIED; motion to expedite appeal
DENIED; all other motions are DENIED; appeal DISMISSED.