Brian Lewis filed suit against JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) in state court, alleging discrimination and defamation by *405 Chase, arising out of unspecified sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations that were apparently made by Chase employees. Chase removed the case to federal court. The district court ultimately dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Lewis now moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Lewis’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and a motion to waive fees and costs for transcripts, concluding that Lewis had not demonstrated his financial eligibility and that there was no non-frivolous issue for appeal.

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may refuse to certify an appeal for in forma pauperis status if it is not taken in good faith.” Howard, v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R.App. P. 24(a). Good faith is shown when a party seeks to appeal an issue that is not frivolous. Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Lewis has not demonstrated the existence of a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Although we construe pro se filings liberally, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995), Lewis’s briefs on appeal are utterly devoid of any legal or factual citations or any argument in support of reversal. With regard to both the discrimination and defamation claims, his complaint and appellate briefs both consist of confusing, conclusory allegations and legal conclusions, and are devoid of any facts that might entitle Lewis to relief under any legal theory. As the district court correctly noted, there are no facts or argument indicating any relationship between Lewis and Chase, any duty Chase might have owed to Lewis, the type of discrimination being alleged, or any details of the alleged defamation. Lewis briefly lists challenges to additional district court orders, including discovery orders and orders denying leave to amend the complaint, without argument, citation or factual support. Because Lewis has failed to present any coherent challenge to those orders, he has “effectively abandoned” those claims. Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008).

Inasmuch as Lewis has not demonstrated that there is a non-frivolous issue for appeal, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. 1 Lewis’s motion to expedite the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.