United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10850

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of William Paul Burch

Debtor,

William Paul Burch, 

Appellant,

versus

Bank of America, N.A., 

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-793

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 20-10850

2

William Paul Burch appeals from the district court’s denial of his 

motion for “reconsideration” of his in forma pauperis (IFP) status, which 

followed the district court’s dismissal, for failure to pay the filing fee, of his 

appeal of a judgment of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of 

Texas. Burch has filed a motion to remand the matter to the district court, 

stating that he is now able to pay the filing fee because his financial situation 

has improved. Because the record does not establish that the district court 

issued a statement or indicative ruling in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, upon 

which Burch relies, his motion for remand is denied. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 12.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1; cf. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 836 F.3d 

503, 504 (5th Cir. 2016). Burch’s motion to withdraw the motion to remand 

is also denied.

Additionally, Burch moves to proceed IFP on appeal. 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.

Even before Burch’s concessions regarding his improved financial 

situation, we held that 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). Burch’s conclusional assertions, 

without cogent legal argument, fail to establish the required existence of a 

nonfrivolous issue for 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.

Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 20-10850

3

In prior instances, we have issued sanctions 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 

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.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL 

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022