Derrick Sonnier v. Charles Honeycutt

Fifth Circuit

Derrick Sonnier v. Charles Honeycutt

693 F. App'x 328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2017

Docket16-30149

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 328 (Derrick Sonnier v. Charles Honeycutt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Derrick Sonnier v. Charles Honeycutt, 693 F. App'x 328 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Derrick Sonnier, Louisiana prisoner # 390403, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the jury trial judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By seeking leave to proceed IFP in this court, Sonnier is challenging the district court’s certification that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Sonnier argues that “evidence at trial” showed that after he “followed procedures *329 and opened his two lockers” in compliance with prison guards’ orders during a shakedown of his cell, he was “subjected to beatings and uses of excessive force.” He argues further that he did not receive a fair trial “[d]ue to blatant lies and other inflammatory statements” and that “he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants used excessive force against him and-that the jury’s verdict was in error. Sonnier does not provide any specific facts or legal analysis in support of these arguments. Because he has inadequately briefed these issues in his attorney-prepared IFP motion and memorandum in support, they are deemed to be waived. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, even if we were to consider Sonnier’s presumed challenge to the jury’s assessment of trial testimony and evidence, we do not reweigh a jury’s credibility determinations. See Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 2, 4, 181 L.Ed.2d 311 (2011); Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691, 695 (5th Cir. 2005).

Sonnier has not shown that he will raise a legal point on appeal that is arguable on its merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

Pursuant to 5tii Ciu, 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;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Derrick Sonnier, Louisiana prisoner # 390403, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the jury trial judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By seeking leave to proceed IFP in this court, Sonnier is challenging the district court’s certification that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Sonnier argues that “evidence at trial” showed that after he “followed procedures *329 and opened his two lockers” in compliance with prison guards’ orders during a shakedown of his cell, he was “subjected to beatings and uses of excessive force.” He argues further that he did not receive a fair trial “[d]ue to blatant lies and other inflammatory statements” and that “he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants used excessive force against him and-that the jury’s verdict was in error. Sonnier does not provide any specific facts or legal analysis in support of these arguments. Because he has inadequately briefed these issues in his attorney-prepared IFP motion and memorandum in support, they are deemed to be waived. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, even if we were to consider Sonnier’s presumed challenge to the jury’s assessment of trial testimony and evidence, we do not reweigh a jury’s credibility determinations. See Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 2, 4, 181 L.Ed.2d 311 (2011); Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691, 695 (5th Cir. 2005).

Sonnier has not shown that he will raise a legal point on appeal that is arguable on its merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

Pursuant to 5tii Ciu, 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;

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derrick-sonnier-v-charles-honeycutt-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack