Phillips v. Interstate Estate of Richard Leon Meankins

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DELORIS PHILLIPS, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-02166-K (BT)
§
INTERSTATE ESTATE OF
RICHARD LEON MEANKINS,
§
§
Defendant. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deloris Phillips filed this pro se action on August 12, 2025. See Compl.
(ECF No. 2). On August 19, 2025, the Court ordered the clerk to close this
case because Phillips is barred from proceeding with any lawsuit in this
District unless she first (i) pays the fee, and (ii) obtains leave of court to file
a new action. See Notice (ECF No. 11). Phillips filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal on October 6, 2025 so she could challenge the
closure of her case. See Mot. (ECF No. 13). The Court denied this motion on
the grounds that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See FCR at 4 (ECF
No. 14); Order (ECF No. 15).
On December 15, 2025, Phillips filed a document titled, ““Request to
Physically View Any/All Tangible Exhibits/Evidence To Assist with
Preparing ‘Motion for Reconsideration With Original Records’ ” (ECF No.
18). Phillips requested “a date and time to physically view any/all tangible
exhibits/evidence” that she has filed with the Court in previous cases. Mot.
Case 3:25-cv-02166-K-BT Document 22 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
at 1. The Court denied this motion, informing Phillips that she may view
documents from previous cases by either (1) using the public terminal
located in the District Clerk’s office; or (2) requesting fee amounts from the
Clerk regarding specific documents she requests then pay for copies in
advance. Order at 1–2 (ECF No. 19). Phillips immediately appealed this
Order and now seeks leave yet again to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
See Notice (ECF No. 20); Mot. (ECF No. 21).1
Phillips’s motion should be denied for the following reasons.
Legal Standards and Analysis
To proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, an appellant must show
financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689
F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24(a)(3)(A), an appellant is ineligible for in forma pauperis status if the
court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. “Good faith” means
that the issues on appeal are not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962). When the underlying claims are “entirely frivolous and
had no possibility of success,” the appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201–02 (5th Cir. 1997). The determination of
whether good faith exists “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal
1 Phillips also requests that the Court appoint her counsel and appoint a
special master pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mot. at 1. The Court will
consider these requests in a separate order.
Case 3:25-cv-02166-K-BT Document 22 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
points arguable on the merits (and therefore not frivolous).” United States
v. Moore, 858 F. App’x 172, 172 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). A district court has discretion in deciding whether to
grant or deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Williams v. Estelle,
681 F.2d 946, 947 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (citing Green v. Estelle, 649
F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Here, Phillips “has been deemed a pernicious, abusive, and vexatious
litigant by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and by this
Court.” Phillips v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 3:13-CV-1571-B, (ECF
No. 10 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2013) (citing Phillips v. United Parcel Serv., No.
11-10766, Order at 1–2 (5th Cir. May 16, 2012)). Both courts have barred her
from communicating with the clerk’s office in each court and from
proceeding with any civil action without leave. Id.; see also Phillips v. City
of Dallas, et al., 3:14-CV-3131-M, ECF No. 22 at 2–3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19,
2014) (recommendation of Mag. J.), accepted by ECF No. 25 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
14, 2015); Phillips v. United Parcel Serv., No. 3:11-CV-2861-B, (ECF No. 57)
(N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2012). In this district, she is prohibited from proceeding
with any civil action unless she pays the applicable filing fee and “[o]btains
leave of court to file it from a Judge of a United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, a United States District Judge, or a United States
Magistrate Judge, through a proper motion for leave to file the action.”
Case 3:25-cv-02166-K-BT Document 22 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
Phillips v. Texas Dep’t of Ins.-Div. of Workers Comp., 2022 WL 17572107,
at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2022), rec. adopted, 2022 WL 17566307 (N.D. Tex.
Dec. 9, 2022). Despite this clear order, Phillips has filed at least five cases in
this district in 2025 alone—three of which include as defendant the
“Interstate Estate of Richard Leon Meankins.”
Moreover, Phillips’s motion requesting that she be able to view “all
tangible exhibits/evidence” free of charge are devoid of factual or legal
support.
Accordingly, Phillips’s appeal is not taken in good faith. The Court
should DENY her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
unless Phillips pays the $505.00 filing fee within 30 days of the filing of this
recommendation.
Recommendation
The Court should find that Phillips’s appeal is not taken in good faith
and DENY her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
If the Court denies Phillips’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, she may challenge that finding by filing a separate motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit within 30 days from the date of this
order. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Case 3:25-cv-02166-K-BT Document 22 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
SO RECOMMENDED.
December 18, 2025.
_________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of
this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within
14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the
objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection
that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will
bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the
district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:25-cv-02166-K-BT Document 22 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>