Joseph Chhim v. University of Houston

Fifth Circuit

Joseph Chhim v. University of Houston

582 F. App'x 406

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 18, 2014

Docket14-20071

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 582 F. App'x 406 (Joseph Chhim v. University of Houston) 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

Joseph Chhim v. University of Houston, 582 F. App'x 406 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Chhim sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The district court dismissed the suit, denied Chhim’s motion for reconsideration, and denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that any appeal would be frivolous. Chhim now moves in this court for the appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed IFP.

By moving to proceed IFP, Chhim challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Because Chhim’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after the entry of final judgment, it did not restart the time limit for filing a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal of his suit. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). His notice of appeal was therefore timely only as to the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and his appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir.2010). Chhim, however, presents no argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. He has therefore abandoned any arguments regarding that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Thus, Chhim has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue in *407 connection with the denial of the motion. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Chhim’s motion for the appointment of counsel is likewise denied. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1991).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Chhim sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The district court dismissed the suit, denied Chhim’s motion for reconsideration, and denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that any appeal would be frivolous. Chhim now moves in this court for the appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed IFP.

By moving to proceed IFP, Chhim challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Because Chhim’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after the entry of final judgment, it did not restart the time limit for filing a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal of his suit. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). His notice of appeal was therefore timely only as to the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and his appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir.2010). Chhim, however, presents no argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. He has therefore abandoned any arguments regarding that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Thus, Chhim has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue in *407 connection with the denial of the motion. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Chhim’s motion for the appointment of counsel is likewise denied. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1991).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-chhim-v-university-of-houston-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack