Smith v. American Arbitration Ass'n , 166 F. App'x 109 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31059
Summary Calendar
EDWARD SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:04-CV-284
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edward Smith (“Smith”) appeals from the district court’s
denial of his motion for relief from judgment in which he
challenged the district court’s dismissal of his claim against
the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on the basis of
arbitral immunity. Smith has filed a motion for leave to proceed
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-31059
-2-
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district
court’s denial of IFP status.
A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that
he is a pauper and the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the
appeal presents nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d
562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Smith asserts
that the AAA is not immune from civil liability because the
arbitrator engaged in “non judicial action” regarding his motion
for contempt. Smith cites to Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991)
in support of his argument.
As the district court determined, Smith’s reliance on
Mireles is misplaced. Mireles supports the district court’s
determination that the arbitrator’s actions in the instant case,
relating to the disposition of Smith’s motion for contempt, was
an action taking in the arbitrator’s quasi-judicial capacity in
the administration of the arbitration proceedings. See Mireles,
502 U.S. at 12. As such, the claim against the AAA is barred by
arbitral immunity. See Hawkins v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers,
Inc., 149 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for
relief from judgment. See Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise Line,
Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir. 1992).
Smith has failed to show that he will raise any nonfrivolous
issues for appeal. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED, and
his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 04-31059
-3-
Smith is WARNED that he may be subject to sanctions if he makes
any further frivolous filings.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.