Mornes v. Valdez, et al, No. 20-10834 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10834 Document: 00515800563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 29, 2021 No. 20-10834 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Leonard Mornes, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Lupe Valdez, Sheriff; NFN Smith, Shift Leader Officer; NFN Smith, Officer; Elizabeth NLN, Nurse; NFN Betts, Doctor; Sean Nicholas Shahrestani, Doctor; Doctor Brigham Kanakanuiokekai Au, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CV-2333 Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Leonard Mornes, Texas prisoner # 02120659, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-10834 Document: 00515800563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 No. 20-10834 order granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he asserted that the defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his broken ankle and denied him medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. The complaint was dismissed in part on the basis that Mornes did not overcome the defense of qualified immunity raised by the defendants and in part on the ground that Mornes failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. Mornes additionally requests the appointment of counsel. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Mornes is challenging the district court’s certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The inquiry into whether an appeal is taken in good faith requires a brief consideration of the merits; a colorable claim—one that involves legal points arguable on the merits—is not frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220-21 (5th Cir. 1983). Although Mornes was granted IFP status in the district court, he must obtain leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Mornes has failed to brief any argument addressing the district court’s reasons for dismissing the complaint and certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly, Mornes has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s certification decision, see Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and failed to show that his appeal involves any arguably meritorious issues, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because he has failed to show that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue, we DENY his motion to proceed IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We also DENY his motion for the appointment of counsel because he has not demonstrated that his challenge to the certification decision presents 2 Case: 20-10834 Document: 00515800563 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 No. 20-10834 exceptional circumstances that justify appointing him counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike pursuant to § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-64 (2015). Mornes is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 3
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.
