Harper v. Hidalgo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Mamie L. Harper,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lena Hidalgo, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-06380
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 4, 2026, this Court dismissed all claims filed by Darrell J.
Harper (“Mr. Harper”) on behalf of decedent Mamie L. Harper. Dkt. 9 (order);
Dkt. 	10 (judgment). 	In its order, 	this Court 	adopted the undersigned’s
conclusions that Mr. Harper, who is not a licensed attorney, cannot represent
the decedent, and that he violated a preclusion order by filing this suit without
prior permission. See Dkt. 9 at 1-2. Mr. Harper now seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, Dkt. 12. He also filed a barebones “objection”
to the Court’s order of dismissal and final judgment. 	Dkt. 13. 	Both requests
should be denied.
First, Mr. Harper’s IFP motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 	Section 1915 permits
a district court to authorize an appeal “without prepayment of fees or security
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 17 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
therefore” if the applicant shows, by affidavit, that he “is unable to pay such
fees” or provide such security. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	Mr. Harper’s
declaration reflects that he lacks the financial resources to pay the fees. 	See
Dkt. 12 at 2. 	But Rule 24 also authorizes a district court to deny certification
of IFP status if it concludes that “the appeal is not taken in good faith ....” Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B). Good faith requires a non-frivolous basis for the appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal that lacks
an arguable basis in fact or law is deemed to be frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 1983).
Mr. Harper’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 	Indeed, he violated a
preclusion order that was entered precisely because he has filed hundreds of
frivolous lawsuits. See Preclusion Order, Harper v. Texas, No. 4:17-mc-02251,
Dkt. 1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017). 	And his barebones, inflammatory pleading
is just the latest example, asserting that Harris County’s collection of property
taxes amounts to “THEFT” and “RAPE” and violates sundry statutes or
constitutional amendments, while seeking “One Billion Dollars in Treble
Damages ....” Dkt. 1 at 3-5. There is no non-frivolous basis for appeal.
Second, Mr. Harper’s self-styled “Objection” to the Court’s rulings does
no more than list various constitutional amendments and accuse both this
Court and the Texas Constitution of “racism.” Dkt. 13. Those contentions are
facially frivolous. They fail to merit relief even if characterized as a request to
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 17 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 	Apart from lodging
baseless assertions, Mr. Harper’s filing identifies no “manifest error of law or
fact” nor any “newly discovered evidence.” 	Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotations omitted). 	To the extent that Mr.
Harper’s objection seeks relief, his request should be denied.
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED 	that Darrell J.
Harper’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. 12) be DENIED.
Construing Darrell J. Harper’s “Objection” (Dkt. 13) to the Court’s May
4, 2026 order (Dkt. 9) and final judgment (Dkt. 10) as a motion under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e), it is further RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on June 17, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
exas.
______________________________________
Yvooon	nn	n	ne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 17 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3