IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11054

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: MUT A. ASHERU,

DEBTOR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

G. VON THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

CARL MATHENIA; PAUL A. SCOTT,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CV-977

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

G. Von Thomas, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his appeal from the

bankruptcy court’s order granting a motion to dismiss Thomas’s motion for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 14, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-11054 Document: 00511232829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2010
No. 09-11054

sanctions and contempt against Paul A. Scott and Carl Mathenia, in his capacity

as a personal representative of a probate estate, and imposing sanctions of

attorney’s fees against Thomas in the amount of $2,450.

The bankruptcy court, in recommending the denial of the motion to

proceed IFP on appeal, determined that Thomas’s underlying motions were

frivolous. In dismissing his motion for sanctions and contempt and imposing

sanctions, the bankruptcy court noted that Thomas had no interest in property

that was part of the bankruptcy estate and that he had abused the judicial

process in order to interfere with state court eviction proceedings. The district

court adopted the finding of the bankruptcy court that Thomas’s appeal was not

taken in good faith because his motion for sanctions and contempt filed in the

bankruptcy proceeding was frivolous. The district court also agreed that the

sanctions were warranted against Thomas because he had abused the judicial

process. The bankruptcy court had the inherent power to impose the sanctions.

See 11 U.S.C. § 105; Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32, 48-50 (1991).

Thomas has not briefed his claim that the district court erred in referring

the IFP motion to the bankruptcy court for the preparation of a report and

recommendation and, thus, it is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Insofar as Thomas asserts that counsel Scott was not authorized to file

pleadings, the record reflects that the bankruptcy court authorized him to

represent Mathenia, in his capacity as a personal representative of the estate,

for the limited purpose of presenting the motion to lift the automatic stay.

Thomas had no standing to complain about the lack of notice of the motion

to lift the automatic stay because he did not demonstrate that he had an interest

in any property involved in the bankruptcy proceeding and did not make an

appearance in the proceeding prior to the stay being lifted. See N.D. TEX. L.B.R.

4001-1(a)(1).

2

Case: 09-11054 Document: 00511232829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2010
No. 09-11054

Thomas’s complaints about the bankruptcy court clerk’s docketing

pleadings several days after they were filed or ruled upon does not raise a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal.

Because the bankruptcy court’s denial of Thomas’s motion for sanctions

and contempt and the imposition of sanctions against Thomas do not raise issues

of arguable merit, the district court did not err in determining that the appeal

was not taken in good faith. The motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and

the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117

F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

3

Case: 09-11054 Document: 00511232829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2010