Roach v. Schutze, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10343
Conference Calendar
MICHAEL H. ROACH; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
MICHAEL H. ROACH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH SCHUTZE; JASON KAISER; JACK MCGUINN; ALAN BOYD;
CODY SHAW; GREGG LYNN, Fire Chief; CURTIS WEDDLE, Mayor;
CITY OF ELECTRA, TEXAS; CITY OF IOWA PARK, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:02-CV-110-R
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael H. Roach was one of several plaintiffs who brought
the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the
defendants’ alleged harassment. The case proceeded to trial but
was settled before the jury returned its verdict, and the
district court entered a consent judgment in accordance with the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10343
-2-
parties’ settlement agreement. Roach unsuccessfully moved the
district court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal and for the preparation of a transcript at
government expense. He now moves this court for leave to proceed
IFP on appeal and a transcript at government expense. Roach has
also filed a motion seeking leave to add a party.
A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show
that he is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith.
Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). Roach has not met these requirements. When the
record is examined as a whole, it shows that his alleged
impecuniousness is questionable, at best. Roach also has not
shown that his appeal is taken in good faith, as he is seeking to
challenge an unappealable judgment. See F.D.I.C. v. McFarland,
243 F.3d 876, 884 (5th Cir. 2001). Roach’s IFP motion is DENIED.
Roach’s motions for a transcript at government expense and to add
a party are likewise DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); Harvey v.
Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 1985).
Roach’s appeal is devoid of arguable merit and is DISMISSED
as FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
IFP & TRANSCRIPT MOTIONS DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

-- 2 of 2 --