IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11113

Summary Calendar

JAMES BOSWELL, Veterans Helping Veterans, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY; HONORABLE JOHN MCHUGH, 

Secretary of the Army; VICTOR J. BOSHINI, JR., Chancellor of Texas 

Christian University; CLARENCE SCHBAUER, III, Chairmen of the Board 

of Trustees; LAW FIRM OF MCDONALD SANDERS; BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY; JUDGE TERRY R. 

MEANS, U.S. District Judge; ROBERT L. GINSBURG, Attorney for Texas 

Christian University, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-330

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11113 Document: 00513103164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
This purported appeal by plaintiff-appellant James Boswell arises out of 

the same district court proceeding as Mr. Boswell’s purported appeal in 

Boswell v. Texas Christian University, No. 14-11089. The procedural history is 

somewhat unusual in that two documents in the district court proceeding gave 

rise to two separate appeals, even though they are closely related. We conclude 

that the earlier panel’s analysis controls the outcome of this appeal.

Both appeals ultimately arise out of a memorandum opinion and order 

and final judgment entered by the district court on September 16, 2014, which 

dismissed Mr. Boswell’s claims against all defendants with prejudice and 

imposed costs and fees against Mr. Boswell as sanctions for his frivolous, 

baseless, and harassing lawsuits against Texas Christian University and 

related defendants (collectively, “TCU Defendants”). The district court noted it 

would entertain a request for attorney’s fees from the TCU Defendants.

On September 26, 2014, Mr. Boswell filed with the district court a 

document titled a “Motion for New Trial, Stay on the Proceedings, Visiting 

Judge Intervention, and in the alternative this Notice to Appeal.” On 

September 29, 2014, the district court construed the document as a notice of 

appeal; in the alternative, it denied any relief in the district court. That

purported appeal was assigned Docket Number 14-11089 in this court on 

October 10, 2014.

Next, the TCU Defendants filed an application for attorney’s fees on 

September 30, 2014. The district court granted the order on October 2, 2014 

and assessed Mr. Boswell with attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,553.00.

On October 6, 2014, Mr. Boswell filed with the district court a document 

titled a “Notice of Appeal to Civil Action 4:14-CV-0330-0 and Request for 

Judicial Evaluation of Sanction[;] Motion for Approval of Electronic Filing[;] 

Leave of Court to Start over with an Enbanc [sic] Hearing and Replacement 

Documentation with a Ten Day Suspense Disregarding the 20 Copies of 

 Case: 14-11113 Document: 00513103164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
No. 14-11113

3

Excerpts and Previous Motion[;] Update on the Chief Justice to Congress 

Impeachment Regarding North Texas Judges[;] Motion to Stay Based on 

Evaluation of North District Court Misconduct[; and] Second Motion for Stay 

to Recuse Judith Jones and All Judges Who Have Previously Ruled on TCU I, 

TCU II, TCU III, and TCU IV.” The October 6 filing was also construed as a 

notice of appeal, giving rise to this appeal.

On January 27, 2015, the No. 14-11089 panel dismissed the appeal, 

concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. The panel based 

its decision on the fact that Mr. Boswell had failed to unequivocally evince an 

intent to appeal in his district court pleadings, but rather had coupled his 

purported notice of appeal with requests for additional or alternative district 

court relief. Most relevant to this appeal, the panel in No. 14-11089 specifically 

analyzed Mr. Boswell’s October 6, 2014 filing:

On October 6, 2014, the plaintiff filed in the district 

court a pro se document entitled “Notice of Appeal to 

Civil Action . . . ,” which the district court transmitted 

to this court as a notice of appeal. The document 

requests a waiver of the filing fee for appeal or perhaps 

the two cases may be started over and combined as the 

primary relief, and leave to appeal only in the 

alternative. Thus, it does not clearly evince an intent 

to appeal, and therefore it is not effective as a notice of 

appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th 

Cir. 1987). Further, plaintiff’s equivocation prevents 

his filing from being considered a “functional 

equivalent” of a notice of appeal. See Baily v. Cain, 609 

F.3d 763, 765 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.1

The sole basis for the instant appeal is Mr. Boswell’s October 6, 2014 

filing. Because the earlier panel has already interpreted that document and 

held that it does not constitute a notice of appeal or the functional equivalent 

 

1 January 27, 2015 Order, No. 14-11089.

 Case: 14-11113 Document: 00513103164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
No. 14-11113

4

of a notice of appeal, we must reach the same conclusion under the Fifth

Circuit’s rule of orderliness.2 Accordingly, we conclude, as the earlier panel 

concluded, that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and the 

appeal must be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

2 See, e.g., Jacobs v. Nat'l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (“It is a well-settled Fifth Circuit rule of orderliness that one panel 

of our court may not overturn another panel's decision, absent an intervening 

change in the law, such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, 

or our en banc court. Indeed, even if a panel's interpretation of the law appears 

flawed, the rule of orderliness prevents a subsequent panel from declaring it 

void.” (citations omitted)).

 Case: 14-11113 Document: 00513103164 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/02/2015