Kundra v. Court of Criminal Appeals , 232 F. App'x 432 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10391
Conference Calendar
FRANCIS TEJANI KUNDRA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CV-14
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francis Tejani Kundra, immigration detainee # A20661647,
appeals the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion following
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition for a writ of
mandamus as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B).
Kundra has not shown that he was entitled to relief under
Rule 60(b) or that the district court abused its discretion
in determining that Kundra could not amend his complaint to
raise new claims in a Rule 60(b) motion. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 60(b); Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 51 (5th Cir. 1993);
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10391
-2-
see also Behringer v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 189, 190 (5th Cir. 1996).
Kundra’s appeal is without arguable merit and is be dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Kundra has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal. Kundra has not shown that his case presents exceptional
circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel or that the
interests of justice require the appointment of counsel in this
case. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir.
1985); see also Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.
1982).
Kundra was previously warned that filing or prosecuting
future frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of
sanctions. See Kundra v. Austin, No. 06-10695 (5th Cir. Apr. 17,
2007). Despite this warning, Kundra persists in the prosecution
of the instant frivolous appeal as well as the frivolous appeal
in Kundra v. Gould, No. 06-10914. Therefore, it is ordered that
Kundra pay one monetary sanction of $100 to the clerk of this
court for both the instant case and Kundra v. Gould, No. 06-
10914. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal
courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any
pro se civil complaint or appeal by Kundra unless Kundra submits
proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If Kundra attempts to
file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in
this court without such proof the clerk will docket them for
No. 06-10391
-3-
administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do
not show proof that the sanction has been paid will be neither
addressed nor acknowledged. Kundra is also cautioned that future
frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED.