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 t o 5 TH C I R . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
3 Before JOLLY, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Appellees in th ese 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 again st 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 cons olidated 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 pro4

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 t he 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
distric t 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 prevent5

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’ a ppeals are DISMISSED as frivolous and entirely
without merit. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

D I S M I S S E D.