Woodall v. State of Texas , 78 F. App'x 953 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 23, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20563
Summary Calendar
ERNEST TROY WOODALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS; D. SLAYTER, Family Court Reporter;
JOHN PEARY, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-1401
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ernest Troy Woodall (“Woodall”) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for
failure to state a claim. Woodall argues that the defendants
entered a divorce decree while he was incarcerated which resulted
in the loss of his business and his real estate.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim will be “upheld only
if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of
facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th
Cir. 1995)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Judges
enjoy absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts performed in
judicial proceedings. Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th
Cir. 1996). Official court reporters are entitled to qualified
immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they acted pursuant to their
lawful authority and following in good faith the instructions or
rules of the Court. See Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th
Cir. 1980). Because Woodall did not allege that the defendants
acted outside of the scope of their official duties, the district
court did not err in determining that they were entitled to
immunity. Furthermore, Woodall has not shown that the State of
Texas is not entitled to immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-99 (1984).
Woodall was previously warned that if he continued to file
frivolous appeals, this court would issue sanctions. See Woodall
v. State of Texas, No. 03-41134 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2003). Because
this court has previously warned of sanctions and Woodall’s appeal
is frivolous, we determine that sanctions are warranted. See
Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1988)(courts of
appeals have the ability to impose sanctions sua sponte).
This appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as
frivolous. Woodall is hereby ORDERED to pay $250.00 to the clerk
of this court. Until the sanction is paid, Woodall is barred from
filing any pro se civil appeal in this court, or any initial civil
2
pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s
jurisdiction. The clerk of this court or any district court in
this circuit is directed to return any attempted submissions which
do not comply with the court’s order, unfiled, to Woodall.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
3