Opinion

Brown v. Chism

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Prisoner w/ out Counsel
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.3%

The opinion

Case: 25-20303 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 25-20303

____________ FILED

January 28, 2026

Mark Audwin Brown, Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Daniel K. Chism; Anthony Marquis Farmer,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-4361

______________________________

Before Graves, Ho, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Mark Audwin Brown, a Texas state pretrial detainee, seeks to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen

the time to file an appeal from the dismissal of his civil complaint. The

district court denied the motion on the basis that Brown failed to cite any

authority providing the district court with the ability to reopen an appeal that

has been dismissed by our court for want of prosecution. Brown’s IFP

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-20303 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2026

No. 25-20303

motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal

would not be taken in good faith because Brown will not present a

nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.

1997).

Brown has not alleged that he did not receive notice of the underlying

judgment; to the contrary, he previously appealed it. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2107(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Thus, he fails to demonstrate a

nonfrivolous issue with respect to the district court’s denial of his motion to

reopen the time to file an appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th

Cir. 1983). His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED, and

the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.