Ratcliff v. Ekre of TX, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Bria Ratcliff, as Power of Attorney
for Frances St. Amand,
Plaintiff,
v.
EKRE of TX, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-2280
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON
BRIA RATCLIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 79. Pending
before the court is Bria Ratcliff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis on Appeal. ECF No. 46. The court recommends that
Ratcliff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, ECF
No. 46, be DENIED.
The salient background facts are set forth in the court’s
October 21, 2025 Memorandum and Recommendation and Order,
ECF No. 35. The court has repeatedly explained that Ratcliff, who
is not a licensed attorney, lacks the authority to represent Plaintiff
Frances St. Amand. ECF Nos. 35 at 4–5, 39 at 2, 42 at 1.
On December 17, 2025, the court dismissed St. Amand’s claims
with prejudice for want of prosecution. ECF Nos. 43, 44. On
December 23, 2025, Ratcliff filed a Notice of Appeal, which states
that “Plaintiff Bria Ratcliff, proceeding pro se, hereby
appeals . . . .” ECF No. 45.
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if it is not
taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is not taken
in good faith when it is frivolous. Coppedge v. United States,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02280 Document 48 Filed 01/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A frivolous action is one that “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d
744, 745 (5th Cir. 1995). An action lacks an arguable basis in law
when the litigant lacks standing to pursue their claims. See
Cangelosi v. Brag, No. 24-1410, 2024 WL 4827368, at *3 (E.D. La.
Nov. 19, 2024) (“Since [plaintiff-appellant] does not have standing
to bring his claims, his complaint lacks a basis in law and it is
therefore frivolous.”); Allen v. Sanders, No. 2:98-CV-65, 1998 WL
318841, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 1998) (“[P]laintiff has no standing
to bring this claim and his attempt lacks an arguable basis in law
and is frivolous.”).
It is a well-settled “rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or
those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse
judgment . . . .” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988)
(per curiam). “But a non-party may be allowed to appeal an order
that affects his interests.” Arnold v. Barbers Hill Indep. Sch. Dist.,
157 F.4th 749, 754 (5th Cir. 2025). To determine if an order affects
a non-party’s interests sufficient to justify their standing on
appeal, the court “assesses (1) whether the non-party
actually participated in the proceedings below, (2) whether the
equities weigh in favor of hearing the appeal, and (3) whether the
non-party has a personal stake in the outcome.” Id. (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
The court denied Ratcliff’s motion for leave to add herself as
a plaintiff and clarified that Frances St. Amand is the sole plaintiff
in this case. See ECF Nos. 37, 42. Ratcliff, a non-party, has not
explained her interest in this case or how she otherwise has
standing to appeal. Accordingly, the court cannot identify a
non-frivolous issue that Ratcliff may challenge on appeal. The
court therefore finds that this appeal is frivolous and is not taken
in good faith.
Case 4:25-cv-02280 Document 48 Filed 01/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
For this reason, the court recommends that Ratcliff’s Motion
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, ECF No. 46, be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this
Memorandum and Recommendation to file written objections.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th
Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas, on January 5, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02280 Document 48 Filed 01/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3