Joel Winsley v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 09-60232 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-60232 Document: 00511207380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-60232 Summary Calendar August 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOEL WINSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:06-CV-342 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joel Winsley has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. She seeks to challenge the district court s summary judgment dismissal of her complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the district court s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must demonstrate that she is a pauper and that her appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., that she will raise * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-60232 Document: 00511207380 Page: 2 No. 09-60232 Date Filed: 08/18/2010 a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. F ED. R. A PP. P. 24(a)(5); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). To establish financial eligibility to proceed IFP, a movant need not show absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The central question is whether the movant can afford the costs of a particular litigation without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. Id. at 339-40. Our inquiry into whether an appeal is taken in 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). The financial information Winsley has submitted to this court indicates that she should be able to pay the full $455 appellate filing fee without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. Moreover, Winsley has not identified any nonfrivolous issue she intends to raise regarding the district court s order granting summary judgment or the district court s denial of her Rule 59(e) motion. Winsley s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Because Winsley s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir.1997). MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.