
    State of TEXAS; State of Alabama; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana, et al., Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Mitchell Williams, Movant-Appellant.
    No. 15-40326
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2015.
    Mitchell Williams, Palatka, FL, pro se.
    Angela Veronica Colmenero, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Alex Potapov, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, Joseph Conrad Chapelle, Barnes & Thornburg, L.L.P., Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mitchell Williams requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the denial of his pro se motion to intervene. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith, ie., that it presents nonfrivo-lous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). Frivolous is defined as “lacking] an arguable basis in law or fact.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir.2001). “A ruling denying intervention- of right is reviewed de novo.” Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc).

The district court did not err in denying Williams’s request to intervene because, inter alia, he does not have an “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). An intervenor fails to show a sufficient interest where he seeks to intervene solely for economic reasons. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). Williams’s motion to intervene was based on an asserted economic interest; thus, it was insufficient to merit intervention of right. See id.

Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     