Mark Watson v. Bell County, Texas

Case: 20-50072 Document: 00515518768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 6, 2020
No. 20-50072 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Mark Joseph Watson, ens legis,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bell County, Texas,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:19-CV-626
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mark Joseph Watson filed a complaint against Bell County Texas that
contained allegations involving a maritime lien, admiralty jurisdiction, the
Uniform Commercial Code, infringement on his copyrighted corporate
fiction, the Carmack Amendment, attempted service of non-judicial
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
Case: 20-50072 Document: 00515518768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2020
No. 20-50072
foreclosure documents, and a bill of lading valuing those foreclosure
documents at $1,251,415.19, the amount he demanded from the County. The
district court concluded that Watson had “filed suit in federal court because
[Bell County] did not allow him to foreclose on a traffic ticket and then kept
the submitted paperwork” and granted the County’s motion to dismiss.
Watson now appeals and moves for summary reversal.
Upon review of the briefs and the record, we conclude that Watson’s
arguments are frivolous and entirely without merit, and we therefore deny
his motion for summary reversal and dismiss the appeal. See 5TH CIR.
R. 32.2; Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1984). Watson is
warned that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may
result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary
sanctions, and limits on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court
subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Watson is further warned that he should
review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are
frivolous.
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
2