Burch v. Aurzada ( 2022 )

Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
__________________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-10709 May 5, 2022
consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce
No. 20-10828 Clerk
Summary Calendar
__________________
In the Matter of William Paul Burch,
Debtor,
William Paul Burch,
Appellant,
versus
Areya Holder Aurzada,
Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-525
USDC No. 4:20-CV-766
Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 20-10709
c/w No. 20-10828
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
William Paul Burch appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his
appeals arising from a proceeding in the bankruptcy court for the Northern
District of Texas. The bankruptcy appeals were dismissed after Burch failed
to pay the required filing fees.
Burch has moved to remand the cases to the district court. He asserts
that he is now able to pay the filing fees because his financial situation has
improved. Also, he moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeals.
To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must
not be frivolous. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). If the
appeal is frivolous, this court will dismiss it. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Even before Burch’s concessions regarding his improved financial
situation, we concluded that he was not financially eligible to proceed IFP on
appeal. See Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 850 F. App’x 292, 293 (5th Cir.
2021). Also, his conclusional assertions effectively fail to identify any error
in the dismissal of his bankruptcy appeals for failing to pay the filing fees, and
he has not shown a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586.
Thus, the motions to proceed IFP are denied, and the appeals are dismissed
as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion
to remand the cases is denied.
Because Burch failed to heed our prior sanctions warnings and our
direction to withdraw any pending appeals that were frivolous, we previously
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 20-10709
c/w No. 20-10828
imposed monetary sanctions. Burch v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Matter
of Burch), No. 20-11171, 2022 WL 212836, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022)
(unpublished) ($250 sanction); Burch v. America’s Servicing Company (Matter
of Burch), No. 20-11074, 2021 WL 5286563, *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021)
(unpublished) ($100 sanction). Burch, who has paid the monetary sanctions,
has repeatedly ignored our admonitions, and we conclude that an additional
monetary sanction is warranted. Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 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 imposed in this matter is
paid in full.
We again warn Burch 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 and to withdraw any that are frivolous.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3