Butler v. Merchants Bk & Trust

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-60123
Summary Calendar
____________________
In The Matter of: BUTLER INC.,
Debtor.
EDDIE BUTLER,
Appellant,
versus
MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST CO.,
Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
1:95-CV-402RR)
_______________________________________________________________
August 8, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, Eddie Butler again challenges the district
court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment in favor of
appellee, Merchants Bank & Trust Co. ("Merchants"), in an adversary
proceeding. We affirm the district court.
Previously, our court dismissed a premature appeal filed by
Butler in this adversary proceeding. In re Butler, Inc. (Butler v.
*
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Merchants Bank & Trust Co.), 2 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 1993). We
thereafter affirmed on appeal the judgments of the bankruptcy court
in favor of Merchants, as affirmed by the district court. In re
Butler, Inc. (Butler v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.), No. 93-7145,
slip op. (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 1994) (per curiam), rehearing denied
(5th Cir. Jan. 13, 1995). Our court is therefore familiar with the
background of Butler's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and need
not repeat that history for the purposes of this opinion.
Having failed in his earlier attempts to set aside the
bankruptcy court's judgments, Butler now brings this appeal from
the district court's denial of his motions for relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and (6). Butler's briefs on appeal contain a
disarray of issues and arguments that appear to challenge generally
the district court's dismissal of his appeal from the bankruptcy
court's judgment in favor of Merchants. Butler also takes
particular issue with (i) the denial of Butler's requests for
reconsideration pursuant to Rules 60(b)(3) and (6); and (ii) the
district court's refusal to grant Butler a fifth chance at
redesignating the bankruptcy record on appeal.
To the extent that Butler is attempting to launch yet another
challenge of the judgments against him in the original bankruptcy
proceedings, we admonish Butler that our court has already affirmed
those judgments. Our ruling on the case that Butler brought before
-2-
us earlier was finally settled. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Supply Co.,
Inc. v. Internat'l Bhd. of Electrical Workers, Local No. 480, AFL-
CIO, 460 F.2d 105, 107-08 (5th Cir. 1972).
With respect to the district court's denial of relief under
Rules 60(b)(3) and (6), we note the narrow scope of appellate
review in Rule 60(b) cases. Trinity Carton Co., Inc., v. Falstaff
Brewing Corp., 816 F.2d 1066, 1070 (5th Cir. 1987). Our review is
strictly limited to an abuse of discretion standard, and we can
examine only the district court's action in denying Butler's
motion. Id. We cannot review the underlying merits of Butler's
case. Id. Having considered the briefs and reviewed the pertinent
parts of the record on appeal, we hold that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Butler's repeated attempts at
postjudgment relief. We agree with the district court that Butler
failed to (i) comply with the one-year time limitation under Rule
60(b)(3); and (ii) meet the criterion for equitable relief under
Rule 60(b)(6).
Finally, we find no error whatsoever in the district court's
decision to deny Butler a fifth opportunity at redesignating the
bankruptcy record on appeal after the expiration of the filing
deadline in Bankruptcy Rule 8001(a).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is
-3-
A F F I R M E D.1
1Butler is hereby warned that any further abuse of the appellate
process with frivolous motions, petitions and appeals will subject
him to serious monetary sanctions.
-4-