State of Texas, et al v. USA, et al, No. 15-40326 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40326 Document: 00513316351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-40326 Summary Calendar FILED December 21, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL., Plaintiffs–Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, MITCHELL WILLIAMS, Movant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CV-254 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40326 Document: 00513316351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-40326 Mitchell Williams requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the denial of his pro se motion to intervene. 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, i.e., that it presents nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Frivolous is defined as “lack[ing] an arguable basis in law or fact.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001). “A ruling denying intervention of right is reviewed de novo.” Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The district court did not err in denying Williams’s request to intervene because, inter alia, he does not have an “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). An intervenor fails to show a sufficient interest where he seeks to intervene solely for economic reasons. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Williams’s motion to intervene was based on an asserted economic interest; thus, it was insufficient to merit intervention of right. See id. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 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.
