Reeves v. Flores

Fifth Circuit

Reeves v. Flores

229 F. App'x 330

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2007

Docket06-10330

StatusUnpublished

This text of 229 F. App'x 330 (Reeves v. Flores) 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

Reeves v. Flores, 229 F. App'x 330 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Reeves appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit against employees of the Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Worker’s Compensation. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous due to Reeves’s failure to pay the court costs owed in an identical action he previously filed against the defendants. Reeves fails to brief the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his suit. He moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and the appellees move for a summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment.

The district court certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Reeves’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). We deny IFP and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appellees’ motion for summary affirmance is denied as unnecessary.

We caution Reeves that the use of “disrespectful and impertinent references to the trial judge” will not be permitted in documents filed with this court. Such comments invite the striking of the documents in which they are contained. See Theriault v. Silber, 574 F.2d 197, 197 (5th Cir.1978).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Michael Reeves appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit against employees of the Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Worker’s Compensation. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous due to Reeves’s failure to pay the court costs owed in an identical action he previously filed against the defendants. Reeves fails to brief the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his suit. He moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and the appellees move for a summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment.

The district court certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Reeves’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). We deny IFP and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appellees’ motion for summary affirmance is denied as unnecessary.

We caution Reeves that the use of “disrespectful and impertinent references to the trial judge” will not be permitted in documents filed with this court. Such comments invite the striking of the documents in which they are contained. See Theriault v. Silber, 574 F.2d 197, 197 (5th Cir.1978).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

229 F. App'x 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-flores-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack