Shanta Phillips-Berry v. Patricia Scurlock, et al, No. 18-31077 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-31077 Document: 00514941837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-31077 Summary Calendar FILED May 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SHANTA G. PHILLIPS-BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PATRICIA BLACKWELL SCURLOCK, Et Al.; JOSEPH ALBE, Attorney; ROBERT LENTER, Attorney; THADDEUS L. TEAFORD, Doctor; MAHMOUD M. SARMINI, Doctor; U.S. MILITARY; OCHSNER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Et Al.; EAST JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Et Al.; FACEBOOK; UBER; LYFT, L.L.C.; HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONS; GULF COAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY; UNCLE BOB’S STORAGE; ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY; OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLE LOUISIANA; SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES LOUISIANA; HOUSING AUTHORITY LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOUISIANA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-7738 Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. Case: 18-31077 Document: 00514941837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2019 No. 18-31077 PER CURIAM: * Shanta G. Phillips-Berry moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal of the dismissal of her pro se complaint, in which she alleged that the defendants conspired to violate her civil rights by implanting her body with a monitoring device. The district court dismissed her complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), denied leave to proceed IFP, and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that she is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents nonfrivolous issues. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Although Phillips-Berry has filed an affidavit of poverty that indicates that she qualifies for IFP status, her allegations are frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Accordingly, her motion is denied, and her appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The claims made by Phillips-Berry are repetitive of other claims she has raised, and we have affirmed the dismissal of those claims as frivolous. See Phillips-Berry v. Louisiana State, et al., No. 18-31068 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019); Phillips-Berry v. Kenner Police Dep’t et al., No. 1831067 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019); Phillips-Berry v. Trump, et al., No. 18-31073 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019). Phillips-Berry is cautioned that any future, frivolous filings by her in this court or any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court will invite the imposition of sanctions. MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING IMPOSED. 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. * 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.
