Collins v. Lawrence ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 01-10502
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
JERRY MICHAEL COLLINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant
versus
RICHARD LAWRENCE; ET AL.,
Defendants
LOUIS B. GOHMERT, JR.
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-641-P
August 24, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumst ances set forth in Fifth Circuit
Rule 47.5.4.
Jerry Michael Collins (“Collins”) appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b) against him in favor of state judge Louis B. Gohmert, Jr. (“Judge
Gohmert”) and the Comptroller of the State of Texas.
Collins argues that Judge Gohmert pressed to have him punished; that the sanctions were
punitive or criminal in nature and the district court violated his due process rights in imposing them
without holding a hearing; that the sanctions were imposed to prevent Collins from speaking out
concerning corrupt lawyers and judges; and that the district court departed from the acceptable
course of judicial proceedings in imposing the sanctions.
We review the appeal of sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs.,
Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 872 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). Collins’ conclusory arguments fail to identify any
error or abuse of discretion by the district court. Moreover, the record reflects that, contrary to
Collins’ assertions, he was afforded notice and an opportunity to respond to the motion for Rule 11
sanctions. See Merriman v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 100 F.3d 1187, 1191 (5th Cir. 1996) (not
requiring an evidentiary hearing as long as the sanctioned party was given notice and an opportunity
to be heard). Finally, we note that the sanctions imposed were civil, not criminal, in nature.
Collins’ appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2 (allowing dismissal of frivolous interlocutory appeals). Collins is advised that the filing of
future frivolous civil actions or appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary
payment s and restriction of his right to file suits and appeals. Collins should review any pending
actions or appeals to insure that they are not frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
-2-