# Brown v. Chism

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 28, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247567

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner w/ out Counsel
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247567

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247567. Public record. Not legal advice.