Thomas Anthony-El v. Bank of America, et al, No. 12-11144 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 3, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 12-11144 Document: 00512488497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-11144 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 3, 2014 THOMAS ANTHONY-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. BANK OF AMERICA; COUNTRYWIDE; US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee for the certificateholders of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., Mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2007-AR7; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORTATED, 100034200057569950; RECON TRUST COMPANY N.A.; BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, L.L.P.; LAUREN CHRISTOFFEL; KEIA ANDERSON, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-144 Before DAVIS, OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Anthony-El has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court s dismissal of his civil 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-11144 Document: 00512488497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2014 No. 12-11144 action. A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The financial requirement of poverty to qualify for IFP status does not require absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The question is whether the movant can afford the costs of litigation without undue hardship or deprivation of life s necessities. Id. at 339-40. To make this showing, Anthony-El must file an affidavit listing his assets as required by § 1915(a)(1). See Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 139-40 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the limited information provided, Anthony-El has not made the financial showing required to proceed IFP on appeal. Additionally, Anthony-El has failed to demonstrate that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 568. A movant shows that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal by demonstrating that the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Even when his brief is liberally construed, Anthony-El has failed to identify any error in the district court s basis for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.
