Roach v. Schutze

Fifth Circuit

Roach v. Schutze

134 F. App'x 747

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2005

Docket04-10343

StatusUnpublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 747 (Roach v. Schutze) 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

Roach v. Schutze, 134 F. App'x 747 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Michael H. Roach was one of several plaintiffs who brought the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the defendants’ alleged harassment. The case proceeded to trial but was settled before the jury returned its verdict, and the district court entered a consent judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. Roach unsuccessfully moved the district court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and for the preparation of a transcript at government expense. He now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and a transcript at government expense. Roach has also filed a motion seeking leave to add a party.

A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Roach has not met these requirements. When the record is examined as a whole, it shows that his alleged impecuniousness is questionable, at best. Roach also has not shown that his appeal is taken in good faith, as he is seeking to challenge an *748 unappealable judgment. See F.D.I.C. v. McFarland, 243 F.3d 876, 884 (5th Cir. 2001). Roach’s IFP motion is DENIED. Roach’s motions for a transcript at government expense and to add a party are likewise DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir.1985).

Roach’s appeal is devoid of arguable merit and is DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

IFP & TRANSCRIPT MOTIONS DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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 H. Roach was one of several plaintiffs who brought the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the defendants’ alleged harassment. The case proceeded to trial but was settled before the jury returned its verdict, and the district court entered a consent judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. Roach unsuccessfully moved the district court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and for the preparation of a transcript at government expense. He now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and a transcript at government expense. Roach has also filed a motion seeking leave to add a party.

A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Roach has not met these requirements. When the record is examined as a whole, it shows that his alleged impecuniousness is questionable, at best. Roach also has not shown that his appeal is taken in good faith, as he is seeking to challenge an *748 unappealable judgment. See F.D.I.C. v. McFarland, 243 F.3d 876, 884 (5th Cir. 2001). Roach’s IFP motion is DENIED. Roach’s motions for a transcript at government expense and to add a party are likewise DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir.1985).

Roach’s appeal is devoid of arguable merit and is DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

IFP & TRANSCRIPT MOTIONS DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

*

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)

134 F. App'x 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-schutze-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack