Lee, et al v. TX Dept of Pub Sfty

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-11189
Conference Calendar
SENECA LAMBRONE LEE; CHRIST CHRISTIANITY PARTY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1102-A
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Before the court is a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal and a brief in support filed by “Seneca Lambrone
Lee in the name of Christ Christianity Party.” Only natural
persons may qualify to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993). Further, a litigant
seeking to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is
economically eligible and that his appeal is not frivolous.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-11189
-2-
Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.
1986).
The district court dismissed the complaint for want of
prosecution for failure to pay the filing fee. Lee’s sole
argument on appeal is that he paid the filing fee in the district
court in a timely manner because Saturdays and Sundays are not
counted in the 30 days stipulated by the magistrate judge’s
order. This assertion is without merit. See FED. R. CIV. P.
6(a). Accordingly, the motion for IFP is DENIED and the appeal
is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Jackson, 811 F.2d at 261; 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --