Nichols, et al v. U.S. Bank Ntl Assn, No. 20-60185 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60185 Document: 00516092117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 15, 2021 No. 20-60185 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Boris Nichols; Tonnie Smith Nichols, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus U.S. Bank, National Association, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:19-MC-162 Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Boris Nichols and Tonnie Smith Nichols seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, arguing that they are financially eligible and that the district court erred in denying their motion for confirmation of their arbitration award against the defendant-appellee based upon the district court’s finding that the parties did not have a binding arbitration agreement. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60185 Document: 00516092117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 No. 20-60185 Because the Nichols have not demonstrated that they will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal,1 their motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). All remaining motions are DENIED. 1 The Nichols should have first moved in the district court for leave to appeal IFP. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). However, in light of the district court’s assessment of sanctions against the Nichols for raising an “objectively frivolous argument” regarding the arbitration award, and in light of our determination that the appeal is frivolous, we need not remand the case to the district court. 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.