* Pursuant to Local 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-10784

Summary Calendar

_______________________

ALONZO DIEGO FULLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM B. DONAHOO, Sheriff of Brown County,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(6:92-CV-053-C)

_________________________________________________________________

July 24, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal represents Fuller’s fourth attempt to

overturn a district court sanction order which barred him from

filing anymore lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas until he

pays a $250 sanction. In the instant appeal, Fuller contends that

this order deprives him of access to the courts and the ability to

file a habeas corpus petition. The order’s validity has been

established on direct appeal. Fuller has had ample prior 
2

opportunity to assert that the order would effect an

unconstitutional denial of his access to the courts as an IFP

litigant. We decline to consider this late-raised additional

ground for challenging the sanction order.

Fuller incurred the original sanction order because he

threatened to incite a litigation bloodbath against Sheriff Donahoo

and Brown County. This court affirmed the sanction under the

standard set forth in Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc., 836

F.2d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). In 1995, Fuller filed

a second “notice of appeal,” seeking to have the sanction order

modified so that he could file another civil rights action. This

court dismissed the appeal as barred by the doctrine of res

judicata.

Subsequently, Fuller filed a petition for mandamus

relief, requesting this court to compel the district court to

accept for filing a habeas corpus petition that had been rejected

by the district court clerk. See In re: Fuller, No. 95-00126 (5th

Cir., June 23, 1995) (unpublished). This court concluded that

mandamus relief was not appropriate because Fuller had another

remedy by means of filing a motion in the district court requesting

clarification of the sanction order or that it be lifted to permit

the filing of the habeas corpus action.

Fuller unsuccessfully sought the district court’s

clarification or modification of the sanction order to permit him

to file a habeas corpus petition. He has again appealed.
3

Fuller’s arguments in this appeal are simply variations

on the theme he has consistently pursued, that the district court’s

sanction was an abuse of discretion and not issued in accord with

governing Fifth Circuit standards. This court rejected those

arguments on his first appeal. This panel is powerless to alter

the law of the case. Chevron U.S. A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co.,

987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993). Fuller’s argument that the

sanction order unconstitutionally denies his access to the courts

to pursue a habeas corpus petition could have been raised in the

original appeal. This argument does not constitute a new or

different ground for relief from the order. Fuller waived this

argument by not raising it in his first appeal. He cites no

grounds for advancing this argument or any other argument as the

basis for avoiding the law of the case doctrine. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.