United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 02-20332

_____________________

JOHN H. BAKER, III; BRANARD BROCHSTEIN; MARK COLLINS; DANIELS

& COLLINS PROFESSIONAL CORP.; ALLEN B. DANIELS; BEN B. FLOYD;

FLOYD, ISGUR, RIOS & WAHRLICH PROFESSIONAL CORP.; HOUSTON BAR

ASSOCIATION; LAWRENCE J. FOSSI; DANIEL E. O’CONNELL, Chapter

13 Trustee; HUGH M. RAY, III; RICHARD SCHMIDT, Honorable; 

RICHARD SIMMONS; STATE BAR OF TEXAS

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; ET AL.

Defendants

CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA JEAN LLOYD

Defendants - Appellants

_________________________________________________________________

_____________________

No. 02-20404

_____________________

In The Matter Of: CASSONDRA LLOYD; CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD

Debtors

---------------------------

CASSONDRA LLOYD, doing business as Big Oaks

Materials, also known as Yahweh Kingdom People; CLAUDE HUGH

LLOYD, doing business as Big Oaks Materials, also known as

Yahweh Kingdom People

Appellants

v.

RICHARD SIMMONS, U. S. Trustee; RICHARD SCHMIDT, Judge U. S.
2

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston

Victoria Division; DANIEL E. O’CONNELL, Chapter 13 Trustee;

BEN B. FLOYD; HUGH RAY; THOMAS J. PEARSON; ALLEN B. DANIELS;

MARK B. COLLINS; MARJORIE PAYNE BRITT; EDMUND L. COGBURN; JOHN 

H. BAKER, III; LAURANCE FOSSI; BRANARD H. BROCHESTEIN; STEWART

TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA INC.; LAWYERS TITLE CO.; HOUSTON

BAR ASSOCIATION; SUPREME COURT

Appellees

_________________________________________________________________

_____________________

No. 02-20531

_____________________

In The Matter Of: CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA DOUGLAS LLOYD

Debtors

---------------------------

CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA DOUGLAS LLOYD

Appellants

_________________________________________________________________

_____________________

No. 02-20573

_____________________

In The Matter Of: THOMAS J. PEARSON; CAROLYN PEARSON

Debtors

---------------------------

CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD, JR.; CASSONDRA LLOYD

Appellants

---------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

---------------------
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

3

Before JOLLY, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Appellees in these consolidated appeals filed an

“Application for District Court to Enforce Multiple Injunctions

Against Vexatious Litigants” on the district court’s miscellaneous

docket. The district court issued a show cause order and conducted

a hearing on the Application. The district court found that the

Appellants, Claude Hugh Lloyd, Jr. and Cassondra Lloyd, had

violated a bankruptcy court’s order imposing pre-filing

restrictions against them; that they had conspired with Barbara

Youngs Settle, who is also the subject of pre-filing restrictions

imposed against her by this court and the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Texas, to engage in conduct

violative of other orders; and that the proceedings were “totally

and wholly frivolous.” The district court entered an order

dismissing all pending cases in the bankruptcy and district courts

of the Southern District of Texas, and imposed pre-filing

restrictions requiring the Lloyds to obtain the court’s permission

before filing any new letters or pleadings in those courts. 

In these consolidated appeals, the Lloyds challenge the

district court’s order, as well as the dismissal of three other

proceedings pursuant to the district court’s order. In their pro
4

se brief, much of which is incomprehensible and incoherent, the

Lloyds argue that: (1) the Application filed on the district

court’s miscellaneous docket was invalid because it did not satisfy

the standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 12(b)(6), and

56(e); (2) the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter

the order in the miscellaneous action, because the original

contempt order against the Lloyds was issued by a different court;

(3) the show cause hearing in the miscellaneous action was improper

because the parties were not placed under oath prior to their

testimony; (4) the district court was biased and prejudiced against

them because of his previous experience with Settle; (5) the

district court erred by excluding evidence; (6) the pre-filing

restrictions imposed against them by the district court violate the

First and Fifth Amendments and deny them substantive and procedural

due process; and (7) their pending cases in the Southern District

of Texas should not have been dismissed.

The district court’s findings that the Lloyds had engaged in

vexatious conduct, and had knowingly violated pre-filing

restrictions imposed against them, are not clearly erroneous. The

district court also correctly observed that the proceedings filed

by the Lloyds were “totally and wholly frivolous.” Therefore, the

district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the

pending proceedings filed by the Lloyds in the Southern District of

Texas and by imposing reasonable pre-filing restrictions to prevent
5

them from further abusing the judicial process. The other pending

proceedings filed by the Lloyds were properly dismissed pursuant to

the district court’s order in the miscellaneous action.

The Lloyds’ appeals are DISMISSED as frivolous and entirely

without merit. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

D I S M I S S E D.