# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10054 Summary Calendar

**In the Matter of William Paul Burch,** 

Debtor **,**

**William Paul Burch,**
Appellant **,**

versus
**Chase Bank of Texas, N.A.,**
Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 524

Before **Higginbotham, Duncan,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursua nt to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2022No. 21

- 10054

2 William Paul Burch appeal s from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reverse all orders in his case. See also **Fed**

**. R. Bankr. P.**  9024 (allowing bankruptcy litigants to seek relief und er **Fed. R. Civ. P.** 60(b)). Because Burch’s “motion to reopen” in the district court was filed within 28 days of the entry of the district court’s order affirming the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, his notice of appeal from the denial of the motion to reopen brings up for review the district court’s order affirming the denial of Rule 60(b) relief , as well. S ee Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 867 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2017) ; Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 66 7 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc)

. Burch has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, a motion to remand the case to the district court , and a motion to stay the proceedings

. Burch asks us to remand the matter to the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 , stating that he is now able to pay the filing fee because his financial situation has improved. However, the district court entertained Burch’s appeal and affirmed the bankruptcy

court ’s denial of Rule 60(b) r elief despite denying him leave to proceed IFP. In any event, the district court has not issued a statement or indicative ruling in accordance with Rule 12.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. Accordingly, his motion to remand is denied.

To proc eed IFP on appeal , Burch must demonstrate both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). An appeal presents nonfrivolous issues when it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). If the appeal is frivolous, we may dismiss it sua sponte. **5th Cir. R.** 42.2; see Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2022No. 21

- 10054

3 To the extent that Burch argues that his case was im properly transferred to the bankruptcy court as it was not a core proceeding arising under Title 11 nor was it related to a bankruptcy proceeding and that bankruptcy courts can only enter findings, conclusions, and recommendations not rulings or judgments, he did not properly raise these arguments before both the bankruptcy and district courts, and this court will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. U.S. Bank Nat ’l Ass ’ n v. Verizon Commc ’ ns, Inc. , 761 F.3d 409, 426 (5th Cir. 2014) ; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) ; see also Banister v. Davis , 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1709

- 10 (2020)

. Burch does not have a nonfrivolous argument that Rule 60(b) relief was warranted because the district court erred in not remanding his case to state court for lack of federal

- court subject matter jurisdiction. A civil case brought in state court may be removed to federal court if the action could have been brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has diversity jurisdiction where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
T here is complete diversity of parties because Burch is a citize n of Texas and Chase Bank is a citizen of Ohio as , following various corporate mergers, its main office is located there

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt , 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006)

. Moreover, the amount in controversy requirement is met bec ause Burch ’s lawsuit sought damages well in excess of $75,000. Finally, while Burch claims that his case could not be removed because it had not been assigned to a state trial court judge, Burch has cited no law in support of this proposition, and nowhere do the removal statutes state that such an assignment is a prerequisite for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1441,
144 6

. Burch’s remaining arguments, concerning his financial eligibility to proceed IFP before the district court and this court are irrelevant a s he has Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2022No. 21

- 10054

4 failed to present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal and because the district court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court on the merits. S ee Carson , 689 F.2d at 586

. Because Burch raises no nonfrivolous issues on appeal, the motion to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See id. ; **Fed. R. App. P.**  24(a) **; 5th Cir. R.** 42.2. Because we dismiss the appeal, we deny Burch’s motion to stay the proce edings as moot.

T his court has repeatedly warned Burch of the possibility of sanction s and instructed him to review his pending appeals and withdraw any that were frivolous. See Matter of Burch , No. 20

- 11240, 2022 WL 901510, 1 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022) ( unpublished) , cert. denied , No. 22

- 5228, 2022 WL 4656736 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2022) ; Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. , 850 F. App ’ x 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Matter of Burch , 835 F. App ’ x 741, 749 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 253 (2021)

. Because Burch failed to heed our warnings, we previously imposed monetary sanctions. See, e.g. , Matter of Burch , No. 20

- 11057, 2022 WL 1499284, 1 (5th Cir. May 12, 2022) (unpublished) (imposing $500 sanction) , cert. denied , 2022 WL 6573247 (U.S. Oct. 11, 2022) ( No. 22

- 5526 ); Matter of Burch , No. 20

- 11171, 2022 WL 212836, 1 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022) (unpublished) (imposing $250 sanction) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 2800 (2022) ; Matter of Burch , No. 20

- 11074, 2021 WL 5286563, 1 (5th Cir.
Nov. 12, 2021) (unpublished) (imposing $100 sanction). Burch has paid some of the se monetary sanctions but has repeatedly ignored our admonitions

. W e conclude that additional sanction s are warranted. Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 to the clerk of th is court , and he is barred from any further filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction without first obtaining the permission of the forum

court. Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/22/2022No. 21

- 10054

5 **MOTIONS DENIED** ; **APPEAL DISMISSED**  **AS**
**F RIVOLOUS**  ; **SANCTION IMPOSED**

. Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/22/2022