Stanford v. State Of Texas, et al.

- 1 -
No. 4:26-cv-00476
Florida Sunshine Stanford,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Texas et al.,
Defendant.
O R D E R
The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim. Doc. 12. Plaintiff then appealed the judgment to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Doc. 15, and moved to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 16. The court referred
plaintiff’s motion to a magistrate judge, who issued a report rec-
ommending that the motion be denied. Doc. 18. Plaintiff filed
timely objections. Docs. 19, 20. Plaintiff’s objections lack merit.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the “objections
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal shall be denied if the court determines
that the appeal is not taken in good faith—in other words, if the
appeal fails to present a non-frivolous issue. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An action “is frivolous where it
Case 4:26-cv-00476-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Wil-
liams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Similarly, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24(a)(3)(A), an applicant is ineligible for pauper status if the court
certifies that the appeal is not taken in “good faith.” An appeal is
not taken in good faith if the district court finds no “legal points
arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s objections restate her claims but do not specifically
address the magistrate judge’s grounds for recommending denial.
As such, plaintiff’s objections are improper.
In any event, for the reasons previously set out by this court,
Doc. 12, plaintiff has not made a non-frivolous argument about
the merits of her claims to raise on appeal. Accordingly, the court
certifies that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a district court may
incorporate by reference its order dismissing an appellant’s claims
to comply with Rule 24 and to inform the court of appeals of the
reasons for its certification).
The court overrules plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 16) and ac-
cepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation (Doc. 18) to deny
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The
clerk of court shall furnish a copy of this order to the Fifth Circuit
pursuant to Rule 24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a separate motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of court for
the Fifth Circuit within 30 days of this order. Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
So ordered by the court on October 14, 2026.
J. CA M P BE L L BA R K E R
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00476-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>