* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20583

Summary Calendar

DENIS MARINGO

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-2212

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Denis Maringo, alien detainee # A79483831, has filed a pro se motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s

dismissal of his suit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA). Maringo filed the suit on behalf of himself, an

organization he refers to as “PLEAD,” and members of PLEAD. The district

court denied Maringo’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the

appeal was not taken in good faith because his complaint was legally frivolous.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20583

2

The complaint alleged 1) discrimination by the BIA against Maringo and

similarly situated pro se litigants based on the BIA’s refusal to allow appeals by

pro se litigants to be reviewed by three-member or en banc panels of the BIA, 2)

discrimination based on the BIA’s refusal to allow pro se litigants the benefit of

oral argument; 3) that the defendants improperly designated Falls Church,

Virginia as the location of the BIA; 4) that the BIA’s streamlined review

procedures violated the rights of due process and equal protection; and 5) that

the defendants improperly usurped 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). The complaint sought

class action certification, an order directing the defendants to give pro se aliens

the same access before the BIA as aliens with attorneys, invalidation of the

BIA’s streamlined review procedures, invalidation of the regulation and BIA

guidelines that allegedly conflict with § 1229a(c)(6), an order directing the

defendants to release statistics and other documents relevant to the complaint,

and a declaratory judgment condemning the defendants’ designation of Falls

Church as the location of the BIA.

By moving for IFP status, Maringo is challenging the district court’s

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Maringo argues that the district court erred in

dismissing PLEAD and its members from the suit on the ground that they could

not be represented by Maringo, who is not an attorney. He also argues that the

district court erred in determining thatitlacked subject matter jurisdiction over

the claims raised in his complaint. The district court’s dismissal of PLEAD and

its membership from the suit was correct. See Rowland v. California Men’s

Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th

Cir. 1998). Maringo alleges only past exposure to illegal conduct and lacks

standing to bring suit for the relief sought in the complaint. See City of Los

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102-05 (1983); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 375

(5th Cir. 2005).
No. 07-20583

3

Maringo’s IFP motion is denied. The instant appeal is without arguable

merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and is dismissed

as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We have

previously warned Maringo that the filing of frivolous appeals will result in

sanctions and ordered him to move to withdraw any pending appeal that is

frivolous. See Maringo v. McGuirk, No. 07-20163, 2008 WL 631304 (5th Cir.

Mar. 5, 2008). Given the frivolous nature of the instant appeal, Maringo shall

pay sanctions in the amount of $50, payable to the clerk of this court. Maringo

shall pay this amount in addition to the $50 sanction in Maringo v. Barnes, No.

07-20697, for a total of $100. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal

district courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any civil complaint

or appeal by Maringo unless Maringo submits proof of satisfaction of this

sanction. If Maringo attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original

proceedings in this court without such proof, the clerk will docket them for

administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof

that both sanctions have been paid will neither be addressed nor acknowledged.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.