Cetina v. Super Target, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10006
Summary Calendar
CRISTIAN L. CETINA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUPER TARGET; RICK FISHER,
Defendants-Appellees.
----------------------
CRISTIAN L. CETINA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUPER TARGET,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-1475
USDC No. 3:04-CV-1497
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cristian L. Cetina seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) in his appeal of the dismissal of his civil complaint, in
which he alleged that the defendants violated his rights by

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 05-10006
-2-
discriminating against him on the basis of his mental disability.
To proceed IFP, Cetina must demonstrate financial eligibility and
a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); Carson v.
Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).
Cetina contends that the district court erred in finding
that he is not disabled for purposes of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII). Cetina has asserted that he is mentally
disabled because he suffers from depression and panic disorder.
He submitted a letter from a doctor stating that he is under
treatment for those conditions. However, Cetina did not allege
facts sufficient to show that he is disabled for purposes of the
ADA and Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(i); Waldrip v. General Elec. Co., 325 F.3d 652, 654
(5th Cir. 2003).
Cetina also contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his Title VII claim because the defendants
discriminated against him based on his race. We will not
consider this claim, however, as Cetina did not raise any claims
of racial discrimination in the district court. See Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
IT IS ORDERED that Cetina’s motion for leave to proceed IFP
is denied because he has not shown that the district court erred
in finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See
Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Cetina’s appeal is frivolous, and it is

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 05-10006
-3-
dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

-- 3 of 3 --