17 Appeals in 2022
Burch has paid some of these monetary sanctions but has repeatedly ignored our admonitions.
We conclude that additional sanctions are warranted.
Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 to the clerk of this court,
and he is barred from any further filings in this court,
or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction without first obtaining the permission of the forum court.
Burch v. Select Portfolio Servicing
JAN 24, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 24, 2022
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
William Paul Burch appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee of his appeal of a judgment of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Texas. Burch has filed a motion to remand this matter to the district court, stating that he is now able to pay the filing fee.
Because the record does not establish that the district court issued a statement or indicative ruling in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, upon which Burch relies, Burch’s motion for remand is denied.
See Fed. R. App. P. 12.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1; cf. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 836 F.3d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 2016).
The motion for remand concedes that Burch does not currently meet the financial eligibility requirements to proceed IFP in this appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982);
see also Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (In re Burch), 835 F. App’x 741, 749 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 253 (2021), rehearing denied,No. 21-5069, 2021 WL 5763451 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2021).
Furthermore, because Burch effectively has not identified any error in the dismissal without prejudice of his bankruptcy appeal for failing to pay the filing fee in the district court, he has not shown a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
On prior instances, we issued a sanction warning and directed Burch to review his pending appeals and withdraw any that were frivolous. Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (In re Burch), 850 F. App’x 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2021); Burch, 835 F. App’x at 749.
In a comparable recent appeal, we determined that Burch had not heeded our warnings and filed another frivolous appeal.
Burch v. America’s Servicing Co. (Matter of Burch), No. 20-11074, 2021 WL 5286563, *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (unpublished).
This court imposed a sanction of $100, again warned of sanctions, and once more admonished Burch to review his pending appeals and to withdraw any frivolous ones. Id.
No. 20-11074
Because Burch has ignored these admonishments, we conclude that an additional sanction is warranted.
Burch is hereby ordered to pay $250.00 to the clerk of this court.
The clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Burch unfiled any submissions he should make until the sanction is paid in full.
Burch is again warned that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in the imposition of further sanctions.
Burch is once again admonished to review any pending appeals— particularly those in which he requests leave to proceed IFP from an order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal in the district court for failure to pay the filing fee and moves in this court to remand based on new financial resources—and to withdraw any appeals that are frivolous.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Burch v. Mullin (In re Burch), No. 22-10027
(5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022)
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Because Burch obviously ignored this court’s admonishment, an additional sanction and warning is warranted.
Burch is hereby ORDERED to pay $100.00 to the clerk of this court.
The clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Burch unfiled any submissions he should make until the sanction is paid in full.
Burch is once again WARNED that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in further sanctions.
He is once again ADMONISHED to review any pending appeals and to withdraw any appeals that are frivolous.
![No [wo]man in this country is so high that [s]he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.](https://cdn.lawsintexas.com/cb:Eo5i~20d8c/w:auto/h:auto/q:eco/https://lawsintexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/twobitesowen.jpg)
Why the Chief Can’t Judge Everything – Even with Judicial Immunity
No [wo]man in this country is so high that [s]he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.
Fifth Circuit Opinion in Favor of the IRS Leaves Texas Attorney Canada Feelin’ Dry
Fifth Circuit: “Congress chose to omit a damages remedy as to tax penalties assessed and to limit judicial review to post-payment and bankruptcy review,” the opinion said. “This court cannot recognize an implied Bivens claim without violating the separation-of-powers principles that are at the core of the special factors analysis.”
US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Stands With the Partisan Conservative Federalist Society in Florida Chapter Meeting
THE JUDICIAL OATH: In sum, the Committee advises that formal affiliation with the American Constitution Society or the Federalist Society, whether as a member or in a leadership role, is inconsistent with Canons 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Code.
