Kinchen v. Stogner

¶1 Robert O. Kinchen, Jr. moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In order to proceed IFP on appeal, Kinchen must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). Kinchen fails to show that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. In his appellate brief, Kinchen fails to explain how the district erred in dismissing his lawsuit against Stogner. Id. Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if Kinchen had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Kinehen’s brief is also void of any record citations or legal argument. Id. Thus, Kinchen’s appeal is also subject to dismissal for failure to comply with the rules requiring citations to the record and relevant legal authority. See Moore v. FDIC, 993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a). Accordingly, Kinchen’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.