Case ID: f-appx_258/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard John FLORANCE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jerry BUCHMEYER; Robert J. Davis; Matthews, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis LLP; Brenda Taylor; Unknown Deputy Clerk or Clerks; Collin County Texas; State of Texas, A Federal Corporation; John R Roach; Yoon Kim; Christopher M. Fredericks; Chad Smith; Rodney D. Patten; Anthony G. Brocato; Mark J. Rusch; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-10908
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 13, 2007.
    Richard John Florance, Jr., Richardson, TX, pro se.
    Shane Read, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Robert Jacob Davis, Matthews, Stein, Shields, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis, Dallas, TX, Carol MV Garcia, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Paige Mims, City Attorney’s Office for the City of Plano, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Richard John Florance, Jr., a sanctioned litigant, moves to proceed on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit and for the removal of sanctions previously imposed by this court. Florance is barred from filing any pleading in this court without the prior authorization of a judge of this court, and we have warned Florance that any filing in this court that contains inappropriate comments concerning judicial personnel or other parties will be stricken and dismissed with prejudice. See In re: Florance, No. 07-40129 (5th Cir. Jun. 5, 2007); Florance v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 174 Fed.Appx. 200 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 2006).

Despite our warning, Florance has again submitted pleadings to this court containing inappropriate comments concerning judicial personnel and other parties. Accordingly, Florance’s motions to proceed as a sanctioned litigant and to remove the sanctions previously imposed by this court are DENIED. Florance’s appeal is STRICKEN from the record and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Florance is warned that future inappropriate filings may result in monetary sanctions. Ml other outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.