United States Court of Appeals

for 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:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 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: 11/22/2022
No. 21-10054

2

William Paul Burch appealsfrom 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 under 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. See 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, 667 (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) relief 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 proceed 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: 11/22/2022
No. 21-10054

3

To the extent that Burch argues that his case was improperly 

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). 

There is complete diversity of parties because Burch is a citizen 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 because 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, 

1446. 

Burch’s remaining arguments, concerning his financial eligibility to 

proceed IFP before the district court and this court are irrelevant as he has 

Case: 21-10054 Document: 00516554856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2022
No. 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. See 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 proceedings as moot. 

This court has repeatedly warned Burch of the possibility of sanctions

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 these monetary sanctions but has repeatedly 

ignored our admonitions. We conclude that additional sanctions are 

warranted. Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 to the clerk of this 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: 11/22/2022
No. 21-10054

5

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED. 

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