Serafina Liccardi v. Delta Personnel/Delta Staffin, No. 18-11172 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11172 Document: 00515143530 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11172 Summary Calendar FILED October 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SERAFINA LICCARDI, Plaintiff−Appellant, versus DELTA PERSONNEL/DELTA STAFFING SERVICES; ROSE LYSKOWSKI; STANLEY LYSKOWSKI, also known as Stan Pierce, Defendants−Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:16-CV-2537 Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Serafina Liccardi sued pro se, and the district court granted the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-11172 Document: 00515143530 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2019 No. 18-11172 defendants’ motion to dismiss per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Liccardi moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. By moving to proceed IFP, Liccardi is challenging the district court’s certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into good faith “is limited to whether the 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). We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Liccardi contends that the defendants breached a quantum meruit contract, fraudulently concealed a letter regarding her trust, psychologically coerced her siblings, and converted and embezzled her investments and trusts. Those arguments are supported with inapplicable cases and statutes and do not suffice to show a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.3d at 220. Liccardi makes other arguments without factual or legal support. She contends that the defendants violated her civil rights, harassed her, and violated her right to privacy. Because Liccardi fails adequately to brief those issues, they are abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, she has failed to show that she will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 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.
