¶1 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 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.
¶2 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 *748 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).
¶3 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.
¶4 IFP & TRANSCRIPT MOTIONS DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.