Harper v. City of Houston

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20787
Conference Calendar
DARRELL J. HARPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HOUSTON,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-3079
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell J. Harper filed a civil complaint against the City
of Houston for $10,000,000, alleging unspecified “racial
profiling” and “corruption.” The district court dismissed his
complaint because it violated an injunction entered December 23,
2002. Harper has filed a motion in this court seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
Harper’s financial affidavit establishes that he is unable
to pay the costs of his appeal without undue hardship or

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-20787
-2-
deprivation of life’s necessities. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). However, Harper does
not address the reason for the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint, and Harper has failed to establish a nonfrivolous
ground for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). His IFP motion is DENIED.
As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. Harper is warned that any future frivolous filings will
subject him to sanctions.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --