NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0637n.06 No. 11-5821 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T J ESSI E D. MCDONAL D, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. ROBERT E. COOPER, J R., Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

Be fore : MARTI

N and CLAY, Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. *

PER C URIAM. J essie D. McDona ld, a pro se Tenne ssee resident, appeals a dis trict court order that imposed sanctions ag ainst him pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In 1973, McDona ld was convicted of obtaining title to an automobile under false prete nses in violation of Tennessee la w. He w as sentenc ed to three y ear s of i ncar cer ation and that sentenc e

was aff irmed on appea l. McDona ld is a prolific litigant who has filed numerous actions in f eder al court, including at least one prior habea s corpus action that challeng ed the validity of h i s 1973 conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court denied his subsequent application for leave to file a second or succe ssive habea s corpus pe tition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ngby

designation.No. 11-5821 - 2 - In 2005, McDona ld filed a petition for a writ of err or cora m nobis in which he ag ain soug ht to challeng e the validity of his 1973 conviction. The district court dismiss ed the case on September 15, 2005, beca

use a writ of err or cora

m nobis must be prese nted to the court that issued the disputed judgme nt and beca

use the writ was eff

ectively abolished by the enac tment of Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 60(b). The district court also place d limit ations on McDona ld’s ability to pursue frivolous actions in the future . McDona ld did not appeal the district cour t’s order

. In 2007, McDona ld filed a “Motion For United States To Interve ne” in his prior cora m-nobis action, asking t h e d i s t ri ct court to cer tify that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)( 3) was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion as frivolous on Marc h 16, 2007, and repe ated its war ning that further sanctions would be imposed if McDona ld continued to file frivolous pleading s. McDona ld’s appea l from that orde r wa s dismis sed for lack of prosec ution. In 2011, McDona ld filed a Motion to Vac ate and a Motion for Summary J udg ment that also challeng ed the validity of hi s 1973 conviction. A mag istrate judg e is sued a repor t rec ommending that sanctions be imposed ag ainst McDona ld for continuing to file frivolous pleading s in violation of the district court’s prior order s. The district court adopted that rec ommendation over McDona ld’s objections. On J une 13, 2011, the district court issued an order that denied McDona ld’s motions and assessed him a $1,000 sanction for continuing to file frivolo u s p l ea d i ng s in violation of Rule 11. The court also barr ed McDona ld f rom filing future c ivil cases until all of his sanctions wer e paid. McDona ld now appeals the i mpositi on of sanc tions. He has moved for leave to proce ed in forma pauper is on appea l.No. 11-5821 - 3 - We r eview the district c ourt’s decision to impose sanctions for a n abuse of discretion. See Mich. Div.-M

onument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cem et er y A ss’n, 524 F.3d 726, 739 (6th Cir. 2008). The district court acte d within its discretion by imposing the sanction in light of McDona ld’s leng thy and persistent history of frivolous litigation. See, e.g., In re McD onald , 489 U.S. 180, 181 & n.3 (1989); McD onald v. Y ellow Cab Metro, Inc. , No. 89-6104, 1989 WL149393, at *1–2 (6th Cir. 1989). McDona ld now asser

ts that the imposit ion of sanctions violated the Ex Post Fa cto Clause of the Constitut ion beca

use t he sanctions involve a “g ateke epinglaw” that did not ex ist in 1973. He did not raise this c laim in his obje ctions to the mag istrate judge ’s repor t and we de cline to addre ss the argument for the first time on appea l. See Ove rstreet v. Lexington-Faye tte Urban Cnty. Gov’ t , 305 F.3d 566, 578 ( 6th Cir. 2002); Miller v. Currie , 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). McDonald also sug g ests that the district court judge was biased. Howeve r, his conclusory asser tions are not based on any extrajudicial activity and there is no indication that the judge was unfairly biased in the

case at hand. See U

nited States v. Sammons , 918 F.2d 592, 599 ( 6th Cir. 1990). McDona ld continues to challeng e the validity of his 1973 conviction throug hout his curr ent brief. These arguments are unavailing beca use he has alre ady filed at least one unsucce ssful habea s corpus action under se ction 2254, and he ha s not obtained this Court’s permission to file a second

or succ essive habe as cor

pus petition as require d by section 2244. The district court’s order is aff irmed and the motion for leave to pr ocee d in forma pauper is is denied.