Frank Carter v. Lorie Davis, Director, No. 16-11296 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-11296 Document: 00514198431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11296 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FRANK DWIGHT CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16-CV-187 Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Frank Dwight Carter, former Texas prisoner # 561942, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of his case. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-11296 Document: 00514198431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2017 No. 16-11296 Carter fails to address the district court’s reasons for finding his case to be frivolous. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Carter has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Carter is WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. See FED. R. APP. P. 38; Clark v. Green, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987). 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.
