Burch v. Homeward Residential

Case: 20-11239 Document: 00516301269 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 29, 2022
No. 20-11239 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
In the Matter of William Paul Burch
Debtor,
William Paul Burch,
Appellant,
versus
Homeward Residential, Incorporated,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-1226
Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-11239 Document: 00516301269 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2022
No. 20-11239
William Paul Burch moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his
appeal from the district court’s without-prejudice dismissal of a final
judgment of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Texas.
Burch’s request to supplement his IFP motion is granted.
To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his
appeal must not be frivolous. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.
1982). If the appeal is frivolous, this court will dismiss it. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
In a motion in this matter, which this court denied, Burch requested a
remand, asserting that, due to a favorable change in his financial situation, he
could now pay the filing fee for his bankruptcy appeal. Even before Burch’s
concession regarding his improved financial situation, we held Burch was not
financially eligible to proceed IFP on appeal. See Burch v. Freedom Mortg.
Corp. (Matter of Burch), 835 F. App’x 741, 749 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142
S. Ct. 253 (2021), rehearing denied, No. 21-5069, 2021 WL 5763451 (U.S. Dec.
6, 2021). Further, Burch’s conclusional assertions of error, without cogent
argument, effectively fail to identify any error in the dismissal of his
bankruptcy appeal for failing to pay the filing fee, and he has not he has not
shown a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586.
Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed
as frivolous. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
In prior instances, we have issued sanction warnings and directed
Burch to review his pending appeals and withdraw any that were frivolous.
See, e.g., Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 850 F. App’x 292, 294 (5th Cir.
2021); Matter of Burch, 835 F. App’x at 749. Because Burch failed to heed
our warnings, we previously imposed monetary sanctions. Burch v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Matter of Burch), No. 20-11171, 2022 WL 212836, *1
(5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022) (unpublished) ($250 sanction); Burch v. America’s
2
Case: 20-11239 Document: 00516301269 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2022
No. 20-11239
Servicing Company (Matter of Burch), No. 20-11074, 2021 WL 5286563, *1
(5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (unpublished) ($100 sanction).
Burch, who has paid the above-mentioned monetary sanctions, has
repeatedly ignored our admonitions, and we conclude that an additional
monetary sanction is warranted. Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 to
the clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts
subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Burch unfiled
any submissions he should make until the sanction imposed in this matter is
paid in full.
We again warn Burch that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this
court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in the imposition
of further sanctions. Burch is once again admonished to review any pending
appeals and to withdraw any that are frivolous.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT GRANTED; IFP MOTION
DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION
IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3