Kuuriraya v. Houston Independent School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NKOZI KUURIRAYA,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-3283
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Plaintiff 	Nkozi Kuuriraya’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 56). 	For the
reasons 	below, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	(id.) 	be
DENIED.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff 	filed 	this 	case 	against 	his 	employer, 	Defendant 	Houston
Independent School District’s (“HISD”), alleging violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title 	VII”), the American 	with Disabilities 	Act
(“ADA”), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”),
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1346, and 18
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 15).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
U.S.C. § 1001. 	(ECF No. 1 at 2). 	In Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, he also
mentions 	“interference 	with 	federal 	proceedings” 	and 	“corporate 	fraud,
obstruction, and retaliation” as additional “claims for relief.” 	(ECF No. 27 at
7).
On February 27, 2026, HISD moved to dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	Amended
Complaint. 	(ECF No. 30). On April 24, 2026, the Undersigned recommended
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (id.) be granted. 	(ECF No. 36). 	On June 1,
2026, 	the 	District 	Judge 	adopted 	the 	Undersigned’s 	Memorandum 	and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 47). A Final Judgment was entered the same day,
dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
and 1346 and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims. (ECF
No. 48).
On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. 	(ECF No. 49).
Plaintiff has now filed the instant motion to proceed IFP on appeal. 	(ECF No.
56).
II. 	Legal Standard
The process of seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal is governed by
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
According to Rule 24, a party to a district court action who desires to proceed
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
IFP on appeal must file a motion in the district court.2 	F ED. R. A PP . P. 24(a).
The movant is required to attach an affidavit to the motion that shows in detail
the movant’s inability to pay the appeal costs and fees; claims an entitlement
to redress; and states the issues the movant intends to present on appeal. 	Id.
at 24(a)(1).
Section 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”
28 U.S.C. 	§ 1915(a)(3). 	An appeal 	is taken in good 	faith under 	Section
1915(a)(3) if a litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 	“Accordingly, in addition
to demonstrating that his financial condition qualifies him to proceed under
the IFP statue, a movant must also demonstrate 	that his appeal involves
nonfrivolous issues.” 	Marsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. as Tr. to LaSalle Bank Nat’l
Ass’n, No. 17-cv-00847, 2018 WL 5733193, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 24, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-847, 2018 WL 7283277 (W.D.
Tex. Nov. 6, 2018) (citing Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982)).
2 The Undersigned notes that Plaintiff did not proceed IFP in the underlying district
court action. (ECF Nos. 16, 24). Therefore, the provisions of Rule 24(a)(3), which permits a
party already obtaining IFP status to proceed on appeal “without further authorization,” do
not apply.
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP on appeal demonstrates that he
likely lacks the financial resources to prepay the costs of appeal. (ECF No. 56).
Plaintiff states that he has no source of income, and that he has approximately
$25.90 in cash or savings. (Id. at 1–2). The Court finds these representations
are sufficient to suggest financial eligibility for IFP status.
However, financial eligibility alone is insufficient. 	As discussed above,
Plaintiff must also demonstrate that his appeal is taken in good faith—that is,
it at least raises one non-frivolous issue. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Howard, 707
F.2d at 220 (“‘Good faith’ is demonstrated when a party seeks appellate review
of any issue ‘not frivolous.’”).
Here, Plaintiff 	has failed 	to comply with 	Federal 	Rule of 	Appellate
Procedure 24(a)(1), which requires Plaintiff to attach an affidavit to his motion
that “claims an entitlement to redress” and “states the issues that the party
intends to present on appeal.” 	While Plaintiff has not identified his issues for
appeal, the Court notes that three of Plaintiff’s claims did not give rise to a
private 	cause 	of 	action (see 	ECF No. 36 at 9–10), 	HISD was entitled 	to
governmental 	immunity 	as to 	Plaintiff’s 	DTPA claim 	(id. 	at 11–12), 	and
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to his Title VII and
ADA claims (Id. at 8–9). Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s Memorandum
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 37, 39), which were reviewed and overruled
by the District Judge (ECF No. 47).
In 	light 	of 	this 	record, 	the 	Court 	does 	not 	foresee 	how 	Plaintiff’s
arguments would have merit or impact the outcome of this case. 	See Badaiki
v. Cameron Int’l Corp., No. 4:19-cv-371, 2021 WL 12301122, at *2 (S.D. Tex.
Dec. 20, 2021) (finding an appeal of issues that the Court has no reason to
believe have merit or would impact the outcome of the case are frivolous). 	As
such, Plaintiff 	has not identified, and the Court cannot discern, any non-
frivolous basis to challenge the dismissal. 	See Braud v. Cain, 354 F. App’x 72,
73 (5th Cir. 2009) (dismissing an appeal as frivolous where plaintiff repeats
claims that formed the basis of his complaint without identifying a new basis
or argument for defendant’s liability); see also Garcia v. Filley, No. 21-10614,
2022 WL 622332, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2022) (“In his IFP pleadings, Garcia
merely repeats his claims that the defendant-judge is corrupt and biased; he
does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s reasons for the dismissal
of his complaint or its certification that his appeal would not be in good faith.”).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in
good faith under § 1915(a)(3).
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS 	that the District
Court certify that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and DENY
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 56). If Plaintiff wishes to
proceed with his appeal, Plaintiff may either pay the filing fee or submit a
motion in the court of appeals pursuant to F ED. R. A PP . P. 24(a)(5).3
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. 	Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned 	shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on July 15, 2026.
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
3 The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Fifth Circuit Rules are available
on 	the 	Fifth 	Circuit 	website 	under 	the 	“Rules 	& 	Procedures” 	tab, 	at
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/. 	Plaintiff is encouraged to consult the Rules in advance of
future filings.
Case 4:25-cv-03283 Document 58 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6