Daniel v. Bexar Cty Dist Atty, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50875
Conference Calendar
JEFFRIE ANTERIES DANIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; LORETTA HEWITT,
Assistant District Attorney; BEXAR COUNTY, RUDY ZARATE, D.P.S.
Trooper; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CV-348
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrie Anteries Daniel, Texas prisoner no. 737485, moves
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The
district court denied the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) and FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3), on the ground that
Daniel’s appeal was not taken in good faith.
By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, Daniel has
challenged the district court’s certification that the appeal is

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50875
-2-
not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997). Daniel’s motion addresses only his claims that were
dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). These
claims were properly dismissed because they challenge the
validity of his conviction, which has not been overturned or set
aside. See id. at 486-87. Daniel fails to argue or analyze any
other relevant issue and has thus waived any challenge to the
district court’s certification. See United States v. Reyes, 300
F.3d 555, 558 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002) (failure to provide legal or
factual analysis of issue results in its waiver). Because Daniel
has not made the showing required to obtain leave to proceed IFP
on appeal, his IFP motion is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.
Moreover, because Daniel fails to show that he can raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his appeal is DISMISSED. See id.
at 202, n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --