Starr v. City of Palestine, Texas

Case: 25-40486 Document: 53 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-40486 May 4, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Tracy Lynn Starr, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus City of Palestine, Texas, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:24-CV-426 ______________________________ Before Smith, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Tracy Lynn Starr, a pro se litigant, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of her civil rights complaint.

The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-40486 Document: 53 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2026

No. 25-40486

The district court granted the City of Palestine’s motion to dismiss Starr’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Starr fails to address the district court’s reasons for the granting of the motion and the dismissal of her complaint. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Starr has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of her claims or the certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith, she has abandoned the critical issue of her appeal. See id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.