Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30166 Su m m ar y Cal endar

VI NCE NT MARKC AS T I L L O P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. KATHLE EN BABI NEAUX BL ANCO; S TA TE OF LOUI S I ANA; GENI E C PO W ER S; D EP AR TM EN T O F PA RO LE STAT E O F LO U I SI AN A; LI SA C A S S E R A ; H A R R YL E E , S h e r if f; J E F F E R S O N P A R I S H S H E R I F F ’S OFF I CE; NI CK CONGEM I ; KENNER CI TY ; W AL

- M ART L OUI S I ANA L LC ; U N I D EN TI FI ED PAR TI ES D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 03386

B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * O n Ju n e 21, 200 7, V i n cent M ark C asti l l o sued L ou i si an a G overnor K athl een B l a n co , t h e C i t y of K en n er, K en n er’ s f orm er pol i ce c h i ef, ot h er L ou i si an a govern m en t alenti t i es, an d W al

- M artL o u i si an a L

. L

. C

. f or al l eged United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30166

2 vi ol ati on s of

42 U

. S

. C

. § 1983 an d st ate t ortcl ai m s. H i s al l egati on s aros e f rom a Ju n e 21, 200 6, i n ci den tat a W al

- M artst ore i n w h i ch C a stillo cl ai m s pol i ce unl awf ul l y s e ar c he d a nd s e i z e d hi m , ac c us e d hi m of st e al i ng a c arb at t e r y, a nd sub j ect e d h im to p u bl i c em barrassm en tw h i l e qu est i on i n g h i m at t h e st ore. W h e n C a sti l l o b rou gh t his com p l a i n t, h e req u ested i n f orm a pa u p eris ( “IF P ”)
s t at us and f

i l e d t he r e qui s i t e a f

f i da vi t s pur s uantt o 2 8 U

. S. C. § 1 91 5 di s c l o s i ng an y i n com e earned , asset s, em pl oym en t , di sabi l i t y or w orkers’com pen sati on b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d , g i f

t s a n d i n h e r i t a n c e s , a n d a n yo t h e rs o u r c e s o f i n c o me . On June 2 8, 2 00 7, a m ag i s t r at e j udg e ( “ M J” ) g r ant e d Cas t i l l o I FP st atus and t he
r ig h tto p r o c e e d w it h o u tp a y i n gth e fi li n gfe e . T h e c le r k a c c e p t e d C a s t il lo ’s
c om pl ai nt , and t he l aw sui tw as doc ket ed as f i l ed June 2 8, 2007. T h e app el l ees answ ered an d f i l ed a m o tion t o res ci n d the M J’ s or der gr ant i ng Cas t i l l o I FP s t at us , c l ai m i ng t hathi s § 1 91 5 af f i da vi t s w e r e fal s e a nd fai l e d t o di s c l o s e num e r o us s o ur c e s o f i nc o m e. Cas t i l l o di d no tf i l e a ny o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n . Ra t h e rt h a n r e c o m m e n d i n gdi s m i s s a lu n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) (A) , t h e M J v a c a t e d a n d r e s c i n d e d t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g Ca s t i l l o I FP
s t at us a nd o r de r e d Cas t i l l o t o pa y t he f i l i ng fe e orri s k hav i ng hi s s ui tdi s m i s s e d. Th e M J gav e Cast i l l o a n addi t i onalt w o w ee ks t o payt he f i l i ng fee . Lat ert hat
sam e day , C asti l l o f il ed a m ot i on f

or l eave to am en d h i s pet i t i on an d p au per ap pl i cat i on . Th e M J den i ed h i s m ot i on t h e f ol l ow i n g da y. C asti l l o t h en app eal ed t o t h e di st ri ctj u dg e t o w h om hi s c ase w as assi gn ed. Th e di str ic tj u dg e den i ed C asti l l o’ s app ealan d aff i rm ed the M J’ s or der. C asti l l o fai l ed to pa y t h e f i l i n g fee. Th e app el l ees m o v e d to di sm i ss C a stillo’ s c la im s o n th e b a sis of th e fals e § 1 9 1 5 a ffi d a v its, u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )(A), anda s f r i vo l o us o rf

o rfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m b e c aus e t he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns h ad ex pi re d, und e r§ 1 91 5( e ) ( 2) ( B)

. The di s t r i c tc o ur ts e ta he ar i ng da t e , b ut Cas t i l l o fai l e d t o r e s po nd. The di s t r i c tco ur tdee m e d t he m o t i o ns uno ppo s e d a nd di sm i ssed al lcl ai m s w i t h prej u di ce. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot speci f y t h e preci seN o. 08- 30166

Wenotifi ed C astillo on April 1, 2008 , that his appell ant 's brief was due 40days from 1 that date. Ca stillo filed a motion for leave to appeal IFP April 1 4, 2 008 , which the appellees opposed. Becau se Castillo fail ed to timelyfile his appell ant’s brief, we dismissed his appeal for want of pro secution un der this Court’s Rul e 42.3. Castillo file d a requ est toreinstatehis app eal June 16, 2008, w hich wegra nted

. Weal sogra ntedhism oti on forle ave t o pro cee d IFP on appeal. Ingranting his motion , we took hi s allegatio ns of povertyas truefor the limit ed purposeof addressingth e I FPrequest. H ow ever, we warne d C astillo that “this will not prevent the court from takin g appropriate action if the [§ 19 15] affidavit i s found to c ontain fals e inform ation” an d “c ontinuin gto purs u e afrivolou s ap pe al willals o re sultinsanctio n s.” 3 statu torybas i s f

ori t s di sm i ss al , butf ound t hat“ t he m ot i on [ t o di sm i ss ] has
m e r i t ” be c aus e “ any ac t i o n a ga i ns tt he s e D e fe nda nt s ha s pr e s c r ibe d. ” N e xt , t he appel l ee s f

i l ed a m ot i on f

orat t or ney’ s fee s and sa nct i ons u nder42 U

. S. C

. § 1988 andRul e 11 o f t he Fed e r al Rul e s o f Ci vi l Pr o c e dur e . A hea r i ng da t e w as s e t , b ut be c aus e Cas t i l l o di d no ta f i l e t i m e l y o ppo s i t i o n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t he
s a n c t io n s m o t io n w it h o u th o ld in gth e h e a r in g . T h e c o u r ta w a r d e d a t t o r n e y ’s fee s and co st s t o t he appel l ee s i n t he am ountof $12, 611. 92 be c ause C as t i l l o g ave fal se i n f orm ati on i n app l yi n g f or IFP st atus an d becau se C asti l l o ref u sed t o drop h is s u it a fte rb e in gin fo r m e d h is cla im s w e r e tim e -b a r r e d

. C a s tillo tim e ly ap pe al e d. 1 C asti l l o argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti m properl y revoked hi s I F P st atus, d is m is s e d h is cla im s , a n d o r d e r e d h im to p a ya tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s a n d co s ts
. C a s tillo says he “i s t rul y a pa u per” an d that t h e app el l e e s e rr o n e ou sl y rel i ed on
unr e l i ab l e i nf

o r m at i o n t o s ho w t hat hi s § 19 15 af f i da vi t w as fal s e . H e c l ai m s he i s j obl ess, ha s no run n i n g w ateror el ect ri ci t y, i s l i vi n g ou tof hi s c ar, an d ow es d e b ts o f m o r e th a n $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e a p p e lle e s a r g u e t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly
r e v o k e d C a s tillo ’ s IF P s ta tu s u p o n fin d in gh e p r o v id e d fa ls e in fo r m a tio n o n h is § 1 91 5 af

f i da vi t s a nd was hi di ng i nc o m e a nd a s s e t s . The a ppe l l e e s a l s o a r gue th a t th e d i sm i ssa lw a s p rop er b eca u se C a sti l l o’ s su i t w a s ba rred by the statu te of l i m i t ati on s. Th ey assertt h e di st ri ctcou rtproperl y assessed sancti on s agai n st Cas t i l l o f

o rpr o vi di ng fal s e i nf o r m at i o n o n hi s § 1 91 5 af f i da vi t s a nd f

o rpur s ui ng a fr iv o lo u s la w s u it.N o. 08- 30166

4 T h e r e is s o m e u n c la r ity r e g a r d in gt h e s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w fo rd is m is s a ls
u n d er § 1 9 1 5
. In so m e ca ses , w e h a ve u sed an ab u se o f d is c r e tion stan d a rd to
r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f a n IF P co m p la in t a s fr iv o lo u s . Mart s v. H i n es , 1 1 7 F .3 d 1 5 0 4 , 1 5 0 5 -0 6 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( r e v ie w in g“t h e tr ia l c o u r t ’s
e xe r c i s e o f

di s c r e t i o n” i n i t s di s m i s s al o f I FP c o m pl ai nt s a s f r i vo l o us o rm al i c i o us an d ci t i n g t o D en ton v. Hern an d ez , 5 04 U

. S. 2 5, 3 3- 34 ( 19 92 ) , w hi c h he l d t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i s s a l u n d e rth e p r e d e c e s s o rfr iv o lo u s n e s s s ta tu te “is p r o p e r ly
r e vi e w e d f

o ra n a bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n” )

. I n o t he rc as e s w e h ave revi ew e d a di sm i ss alunder § 1 915 den o vo , ap p l y i ngt h e s a me s t a n d a r d u s e d t o r e v i e w a di sm i ssalpu rsuan tt o R u l e 12(b) ( 6 ) of t h e F ederalR u l es of C i vi lP rocedure. Moo re v. Ca rw e ll, 168 F. 3d 234, 236 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) (r evi ew i ng d e novo t he di sm i ssalof an IF P com pl ai n tu n der st atutor y provi si on s f or di sm i ssalboth f

or fr iv o lo u s n e s s a n d fa ilu r e to s ta te a cla im ); B ra d ley v. P u ck ett , 157 F. 3d 1022, 1025 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (r evi ew i ng de no vo t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s d i s m i s s a lo f a n I FP
co m p la in t u n d e r th e § 19 1 5 p ro v ision for d ism iss a l for failu re to s ta te a cla im ). W e n e ed n otres ol ve t h i s di scr epa n cy here, becau se w e f i n d that t h e di st ri ct court w as cor rectun der ei th e r a n a bu se of di scr et i on or d e novo st an da rd of
r e v ie w . W e re v ie w th e R u le 1 1 s a n c tio n s fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . A m . A i rl i n es, I n c . v . A ll ie dP il o ts A s s ’n , 9 6 8 F .2 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). Fed e r alc o ur t s m aya ut ho r i z e l i t i ga nt s t o pr o c e e d i n a s ui tw i t ho utpa yi ng anyf e e s i f t he y s ubm i ta n a f

f i da vi tdi s c l o s i ng al lt he i ras s e t s and t he i rr e as o ns f or t h ei r i n abil i t y t o pa y. 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1915 ( a) ( 1)

. H ow ever, court s “ sha l ldi sm i ss”
a ca se u p o n fin d in ga n a ll e g a tion of p o v e rty is fals e , 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )(A),
o r“ t he a c t i o n . . . i s f

r i vo l o us o rm al i c i o us , ” 2 8 U

. S. C. § 1 91 5( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( I ) , o rt he
c o m p la in t “ fa ils to s ta te a cla im o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g r a n te d ,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) (i i)

. I m por t ant l y, § 1915( e) ( 2) i s phras ed i n m andat or y r at hert han per m i ss i ve t er m s: “ N ot w i t hst andi ng any f i l i ng fee , or any por t i on t her eo f, t hat
m a y h a ve b ee n p a i d , th e co u rt sha l ldis m i ss t h e case at any ti m e i f t h e courtN o. 08- 30166

I nterp retin gth e predec es sor st atuteto 2 8 U. S. C

. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )( A ), 2 8U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (d), 2 we observe d that "[i]n procee dings brou ght in forma pauperis, the district court has discretion to dismiss the case if the alle gationof povertyis untrue." Lay v. Justice s- Mi ddleDi st. Cour t, 811 F .2d 285 , 285 (5th Cir. 1987). The predece ssor statute, 28U.S.C . § 191 5(d), stated acourt “maydismiss [a] case [brou ght in forma pauperis] if the alle gationof povertyis untrue, or if satisfie d th at the action is frivolou s or maliciou s.” Humphries v. Various I SI NS Employees , 164F .3d 9 36, 94 0 n.4 (5thC ir. 1 999). This lan gu age l ed c ourt s to interpret the dismissal as discretionary. However, wh en the statut e was amen ded, the l angu ag e was changed toth e curre nt phra sing

of “shall di smiss.” This change indic ates Con gre ss intende ddi s mi s s al sunder § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2 )(

A ) to b e man datory rath erth andis cretio n ary . See Math is v. New York L ife I ns. Co. , 13 3 F .3d 5 46, 54 7 (7th Cir. 1998) (statingth e a mended lan gu age “mandat ed th at a di strict court‘ sh alldis mi ss th e ca se ’ if , a mo n goth erthin g s, ‘th e all egationof povertyi s untru e’”)

.

5 d e t e r m i n e s t h a t
. . . t h e a l l e g a t i o n o f p o v e r t yi s u n t r u e . ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 191 5( e) ( 2) (A) ( em ph asi s add ed). T h o u g h th e st atute i s s i l en tas t o w h et h er 2 t h i s di sm i ssalshou l d be w i t h or w i t h ou tprej u di ce, w e noted t h a t c a se s are ap pr o pr i at e l y di s m i s s e d wi t h pr ej udi c e w he n “ e vi de nc e e xi st s of b adfai t h,
m a n i p u l a tive tacti cs, o r liti giou sn ess . ” Id

. at286 ( c i t i ng Ca mp v . O liv e r, 798 F .2 d 4 3 4 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ); D aw son v. L enn on , 7 9 7 F .2 d 9 3 4 (11 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); Harri s v. C uyl er , 6 6 4 F .2 d3 8 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 1 )). In re v o k in gC a s tillo ’ s IF P s ta tu s , th e M J fo u n d th a t t h e “e v i d e n c e . . . is
ove r w hel m i ng t hatpl ai nt i f f i s notent i t l ed t o pr oc ee d i n f or m a pauper i s and t hat h i s A pp l i cat i on t o P roceed I n F orm a P au peri s . . . w as fal se. ” Th e M J al so i n stru cted C a sti l l o th a t i f h e fail ed to pa y th e f i l i n g fee, h i s su i t w a s su b j ect to di sm i ssal u n der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1915 ( e) ( 2) (A)

. W h en C asti l l o fai l ed to pa y t h i s f ee an d als o fai l ed to respon d t o the ap pel l ees’m ot i on s to dis m i ss, the d i st ri ctcourt d is m is s e d C a s tillo ’ s cla im s w ith p r eju d ic e . T h o u g h th e M J c h o s e to g iv e C a s tillo tim e to p a yth e fe e s in s te a d o f d is m is s in g h is c a s e o u tr ig h t w h e n it r e v o k e d h is IFP st atus, un der t h e st atute the di sm i ssalw as a pp ropri ate any ti m e t h e court d e te r m in e d th a t t h e a lle g a tio n o f p o v e r ty w a s u n tr u e . T h e app el l ees hav e provi ded p roof of m an y i n consi st en ci es i n C asti l l o' s § 191 5 aff

i da vits. In hi s af

f i da vi t , C asti l l o cl ai m ed ( 1) t h e onl y au t os orot h er va l u a b l e p rop erty h e ow n ed w ere a n i n op era b l e 19 9 1 va n an d a 1 9 9 1 truc k w orthN o. 08- 30166

6 $20 0; ( 2) he h a d n o cash or s avings or checking accoun t s; ( 3) he h ad been
u n e m p lo y e d s in c e 2 0 0 5 ; a n d (4 ) h e h a d n o t r e c e iv e d m o n e yfr o m a n ys o u r c e in th e p a s t y e a r . T h o u g h C a s tillo c la im s t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d o n u n r e lia b le evi denc e i n f

i ndi ng t hathi s al l egat i on o f pov er t y w as fal se , t he appel l ee s have presented an abu n da n ce of evi den ce t h at C asti l l o h as n u m e ro u s u n di scl osed
s o ur c e s o f i nc o m e . Am o ng o t he r e vi de nc e , t he r e c o r d s ho w s t hatCas t i l l o o w ns severalveh i cl es, run s on e or m ore bu si n esses f or w h i ch he w as hir i n g em pl oyees, f i l l ed o uta c r edi tappl i c ati on i n 2007 c r edi tappl i c at i on c l ai m i ng a $100 , 000
sa l ar y, dr ew seve r alm ont hs’rentf r om hi s c hec ki ng ac c ount , and pai d t he $750 f i l i n g fee t o run f

or governor of

L ou i si an a i n Sep t em ber 200 7. C asti l l o ha s fai l ed to re b u t t h is e v id e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ldth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly f ou n d that the al l egati on s of p overt y i n C asti l l o’ s § 191 5 aff i da vi t s w ere un t rue, a n d p rop erly d i sm i sse d th e cas e . S e eL ay v . Ju s tic e s -Mid d le D is t. Co u r t, 811 F .2d 2 8 5 , 2 8 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). F u rth er, th e d i stri ct cou rt correctly d i sm i sse d C a s ti l l o’ s cl a i m s w i th prej u di ce. I n hi s app el l ate bri ef, C asti l l o ad m i t s t h at he “ i s a f requ en tl i t i gator
w i th do ze n s of op en cas es th rou gh ou t t h e sta te an d i n the 1 9 th , 2 4 th , 29 th , etc Ju di ci alD i st ri ctC ou rt s f or t h e State of

L ou i si an a w i t h t en s up on t h ou san ds of court rel ated cos t s du e . . . . ” T h i s i s c l ear evi den ce of l i t i gi ou sness, w h i ch u n der L ay w a r r a n ts a d is m is s a l w ith p r eju d ic e . S e eL ay , 811 F

. 2d at 286
. T h e rec ord al so i n di cat es t h at t h e sam e day C a sti l l o f i l ed su i ti n t h e i n st an tcase, he f i l ed anot herfede r als ui tw i t houtpayi ng fee s and w i t h a near l y i dent i c al§ 1915 af f i davi t
. I n addi t i on, t he r ec or d s how s t hatdu ri ng a 2007 S pears h e a r in gin
an ot h er of

C asti l l o’ s su i t s, h e b ragged a bou tbei n g L ou i si an a’ s m ostprol i f i c pro se l i t i gat or . The M J i n t hatc as e no t ed Cast i l l o had f i l ed do ze ns o f

fede r al l aw sui t s and hi s l ong hi st or y o f f r i vol ous l i t i gat i on l ed t hi s C our ti n 2004 t o b ar Cas t i l l o f

r o m f i l i ng fe de r als ui t s I FP dur i ng hi s f r e que ntpe r i o d s o f

i n c a r c e r a t i o n. Cas t i l lo v . Lo ui s i ana ,10 8 F e d

. A p p ’ x1 5 6 , 1 5 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ).N o. 08- 30166

7 W e a ls o c o n c lu d e th a tth e d is t r i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t ly fo u n d th a tC a s t il lo ’s cl ai m s w ere f

rivol ou s because they w ere barred by t h e st atute of l i m i t ati on s. W he n a pl ai nt i f

f b r i ngs a § 1 98 3 ac t i o n i n f e de r alc o u rt , the c o ur ta ppl i e s t he p e r s o n a l inju r y s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o f th e fo r u m s ta te
. Haw ki ns v . Mc H ugh , 4 6 F

. 3 d 1 0 , 1 2 (5th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ). H ere , L ou i sian a l a w pr ov i d es a on e-ye a r statu te
o f l i m i t at i o ns — a pl ai nt i f f m us tbr i ng an ac t i o n no l at e rt han o ne y e ara f t e rt he d a yo f th e a l l e g e d i nj u r y o rd a m a g e s . L A
. C IV
. C ODE A NN
. a rt. 3 4 9 2 (20 0 8 ). Cas t i l l o s ubm i t t e d hi s pe t i t i o n t o t he cl e r k’ s of f i c e o ne y e art o t he da y af t e rt he al l eged W al

- M arti n ci den t t h a t g a v e ri se t o t h i s s u i t , bu tt h e sui tw as not of f i ci al l y dock et ed u n t i la w eek l ater , f ol l ow i n g t h e app rovalof hi s I F P st atus. I f hi s I FP s t at us had notbeen re vo ked, t he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i ons m i ghthave be e n e qui t ab l y t o l l e d f o rt he t i m e b e t w e e n t he da t e he s ubm i t t e d hi s pe t i t i o n a nd th e d a te th a t h is IF P s ta tu s w a s g r a n te d

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Patt ers on , 211 F. 3d 927, 931 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) (c i t i ng Y n clan v. D ep’

tof A i r Force , 943 F. 2d 1388, 13 92 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 1) , f o rt he pr o po s i t i o n t hata c o ur tc l e r k’ s de l ayi n s t am pi ng c o m p la in t a s “file d ” d u e to a p e n d in g m o tio n to p r o c e e d IF P ju s tifie d e q u ita b le tol l i n g). H ow ev er, since the distri ct cou rt revo k ed C a s tillo’ s IF P statu s d u e to t h e f i n di n g t h at h i s § 19 15 a f f i da vi t s w ere fal se, t h i s equit able t ol l i n g n o l on ger ap pl i es. A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istr ict co u rt c o rr e ctlyd e te rm in e d th a t h is cla im s w e re b a r r e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . F i n al l y, w e h ol d t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on w h en i ti m po s e d s anc t i o ns a ga i ns tCas t i l l o und e rR ul e 11 byre qui r i ng hi m t o pa y t he def endant s’r eas onabl e a t t or ney’ s fee s an d ex pense s. Ru l e 1 1 o f t he Feder al R ul es o f C i vi lPro c edur e pr ovi des t hatby subm i t t i ng t o t he c our ta pl eadi ng,
w ri t t en m ot i on , or an y ot h er pap er, a p art y cert i f i es that i ti s not presented f or i m pro perpurpo se s ( suc h as haras sm entornee dl es s del ay and c os t s) , t hatl egal contenti on s an d c l ai m s or defenses are sup ported by l aw an d are n otf rivol ou s, and t hatal lal l egati on s i n t he papers ubm i t t ed l i kel y w i l lbe f ound t o haveN o. 08- 30166

8 e v id e n tia r ys u p p o r t. F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 11(b)

. R u l e 11 al so al l ow s a c ou rt , af t er no t i c e a nd o ppo r t uni t y t o r e s po nd, t o i m po s e “ an ap pr o pr i at e s anc t i o n” o n a p a r tyfo rv io la tin gR u le 1 1 (b ). F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 11(c )

. S u ch san ct i on s are l i m i t ed byt he r ul e t o w hat e ve rsuf f i c i e nt l y de t e r s t he of

fe ns i ve co nduc t , b utm ayi nc l ude
o r d e r s to p a ya tt o r n e y ' s fe e s a n d o th e re x p e n s e s . Id

. H ere, C asti l l o ha s fai l ed t o s ho w t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y i m po s i ng s anc t i o ns i n t he
am ou ntof

$12, 611. 92. Th e e vi denc e c l ear l y s how s t hatC as t i l l o' s § 1 915
a ffid a v its w e r e fa ls e . T h e a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s a n d c o s ts th e d is tr ic t co u r t o r d e r e d h im t o pa y fe l l w i t hi n t he r e as o nab l e di s c r e t i o n o f t he c o ur t t o de t e r Cas t i l l o f rom f ur t he r m i s c o nd uc t , e s p e c i a l l y c o ns i d e r i ng Cas t i l l o ’ s hi s t o r y o f f i l i ng I FP l aw sui t s. H aving concl u ded t h at C a sti l l o’ s § 191 5 aff i da vi t s c on t ai n ed fal se i nf o r m at i o n, w e f

i nd t hatCas t i l l o ’ s a ppe ali s w i t ho uta r gua bl e m e r i ta nd t hus fr iv o lo u s . Se e Ho w ar d v

. Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2d 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). T h eref ore, it is d is m is s e d a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee 5 T H C IR
. R. 42. 2. W e al so not e t hatC as t i l l o w as pr e vi o us l y ba r r e d f

r o m pr o c e e di ng I FP i n any c i vi lac t i o n o ra ppe alf i l e d d ur i ng h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n b e c a u s e h e a c c u m u l a t e d t h r e e s t r i k e s f o rp u r p o s e s o f

2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ca sti llo v. L ou isia n a , 1 0 8 F e d

. A p p ’ x1 5 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di n gl y, w e i n vi t e t h e A pp el l ees t o m o ve t h i s C ou rtf or t h e i m posi t i on of
san ct i on s and cos t s un der F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 38. DI S M I S S ED