Billy Tran v. James Quintanilla, et al, No. 14-51073 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-51073 Document: 00513182677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-51073 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 4, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BILLY MINH TRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JAMES QUINTANILLA; JIM ACUNA, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CV-842 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy Minh Tran, Texas prisoner # 894698, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and a jury verdict for the defendants on Tran’s excessive force claim. The district court denied Tran’s IFP motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Tran is challenging 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-51073 Document: 00513182677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2015 No. 14-51073 the district court’s certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). Tran’s conclusional statements and list of alleged errors are not supported by any actual argument, citations to authorities, or references to the record. The claims are therefore considered abandoned. See United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Tran has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the IFP motion is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.2; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). Tran is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 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.
