Chambers v. United States Treasury, No. 22-50414 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50414 Document: 00516679063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 16, 2023 No. 22-50414 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Anthony Chambers, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus United States Treasury, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:22-CV-424 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Anthony Chambers, currently incarcerated at the McLennan County Jail (inmate # 103895), moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his pro se complaint. Chambers challenges the district court’s determination that the appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)-(5). Our inquiry into whether _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50414 Document: 00516679063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 No. 22-50414 an appeal is taken in 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 citations omitted). In his IFP motion and supporting brief, Chambers does not make any reference to or specifically assert any errors in the district court’s analysis of his claims. Nevertheless, Chambers cannot make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. As discussed by the district court, his claims revolve around the legally unfounded “redemptionist theory.” Cf. Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008) (explaining the theory). Accordingly, his motion 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. The district court’s dismissal of Chambers’s complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). Chambers is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while 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.
