*629 Frank Herrera moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the underlying denial of his IFP motion based on the determination that his proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint was time-barred and substantively without merit. By so moving, Hei’rera challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Herrera’s appellate IFP motion is restricted to the argument that he is entitled to proceed IFP because he is a pauper. He has waived any argument challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, as well as any challenge to the reasons for the district court’s underlying denial of his initial IFP motion filed jointly with his proposed § 1983 complaint, by failing to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He has thus abandoned the only grounds for appeal. Id. The appeal is wholly without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see also Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. Herrera’s IFP motion is denied, as is his motion for the appointment of counsel. The motion for the temporary reinstatement of his Texas master plumber’s license is similarly denied.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.