Opinion
No. 08-30188 Summary Calendar.
October 28, 2009.
Vincent Mark Castillo, St. Rose, LA, pro se.
Don Anthony Almerico, Law Office of Don Almerico, St. Rose, LA, Louis Gerard Authement, District Attorney's Office for the 29th JDC-Parish of St. Charles, Hahnville, LA, Eneid A. Francis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, Micheal Leslie Penn, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC No. 2:06-CV-9872.
Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Vincent Mark Castillo filed a civil rights complaint against a host of defendants alleging that he had been wrongly searched and seized, that he had been detained improperly, and that he had been subjected to various types of unconstitutional treatment while housed in the St. Charles Parish Correctional Center ranging from interference with his mail to not allowing him to brush his teeth. Based on the financial affidavit submitted by Castillo, he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the district court. The district court subsequently rescinded the IFP order based on the factual finding that Castillo was not a pauper.
Castillo now moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Under FED. R.APP. P. 24(a)(5), this court may entertain a motion to proceed IFP when the district court has denied a litigant leave to proceed IFP. To proceed IFP on appeal, a movant must demonstrate that he is a pauper and that he will raise nonfrivolous issues on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Castillo has not shown that he is a pauper or that he can present a nonfrivolous issue that the district court erred by revoking his pauper status. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.