Taylor v. Kendall Law Group, No. 21-10280 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10280 Document: 00516143858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 23, 2021 No. 21-10280 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Theodore William Taylor, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus The Kendall Law Group, P.L.L.C.; Joseph Kendall, Attorney at Law, in his Individual and his Professional capacity, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CV-65 Before Jones, Duncan and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Theodore William Taylor, federal prisoner # 26966-078, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By moving to proceed IFP, Taylor challenges the district court’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10280 Document: 00516143858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2021 No. 21-10280 certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “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 citations omitted). By failing to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or providing any other reason why the district court’s certification is erroneous, Taylor has abandoned any challenge he might have raised regarding the district court’s decision. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Taylor has failed to identify any issue of arguable merit, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Our dismissal of Taylor’s appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 535-39 (2015). Taylor is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 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.
