Court Opinion

ID: 9392076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 00:00:32.420283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.370623
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30614         Document: 00516736803             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                      May 3, 2023
                                        No. 22-30614
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   Ashton R. O’Dwyer, Jr.,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Ron Carter; Jennifer Fagan; Advanced Property
   Restoration Services, L.L.C.; Jason Houp; Strategic
   Claim Consultants, L.L.C.; Brandon Lewis; GNO
   Property Management, L.L.C.; Robert Kirk Phillips;
   Cynthia Bologna; Loeb Law Firm, L.L.C.; Jack K.
   Whitehead, Jr.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:22-CV-2813
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Former attorney Ashton O’Dwyer, proceeding pro se, appeals from
   the dismissal of a suit that he filed in the United States District Court for the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30614      Document: 00516736803           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                     No. 22-30614

   Eastern District of Louisiana. He has been disbarred from practicing in that
   court since 2009, and he was “removed from the roll of attorneys admitted
   to practice as a member of the bar of this court” in 2019. In re O’Dwyer, 771
   F. App’x 556, 557 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). He is also disbarred and
   “permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law” in the
   state of Louisiana. In re O’Dwyer, 221 So. 3d 1, 20 (La. 2017) (per curiam).
   Although the Eastern District of Louisiana’s disbarment order allows him to
   petition for reinstatement, he has not done so. Because the disbarment order
   is still in effect, he cannot “file pleadings or documents” in the Eastern
   District of Louisiana—even as a pro se litigant—“without first” taking two
   steps: (1) “obtaining an Order from a member of th[e] Court” that authorizes
   his filing, and (2) “paying all outstanding monetary sanctions issued against
   him.”
           He did not take either step before filing the complaint in this case.
           First, as the district court noted, O’Dwyer neither “s[ought]” nor
   “receive[d] authorization to file” this suit. And on appeal, O’Dwyer has
   forfeited any contrary arguments by failing to present them. See Procter &
   Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Nor do we
   discern even the possibility of such an argument. While O’Dwyer did
   eventually ask for “Leave of Court” to file, that request appeared for the first
   time in a motion to reopen the dismissed case. By contrast, the disbarment
   order requires O’Dwyer to obtain the court’s permission before ever filing
   suit. He did not do that, so dismissal was proper.
           Second, and independently, O’Dwyer has “failed to pay . . . the
   outstanding monetary sanctions issued against him.” He argues that the
   various sanctions he faces are each around 15 years old, and thus that they are
   not collectable under “the Louisiana Civil Code.” We disagree. A federal
   court’s inherent power to “vindicate[e] judicial authority” cannot “be made

                                           2
Case: 22-30614       Document: 00516736803            Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                       No. 22-30614

   subservient to” state statutes of limitations. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
   U.S. 32, 55 (1991) (quoting NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu Television & Radio, Inc.,
   894 F.2d 696, 705 (5th Cir. 1990)).
          O’Dwyer also argues that the sanctions he faces were discharged in a
   bankruptcy proceeding that ended in 2015. Taking judicial notice of the
   record in that proceeding, we agree with the district court that the sanctions
   “were [not] listed or scheduled for discharge” in O’Dwyer’s bankruptcy.
   Even if they had been listed, bankruptcy cannot discharge “a fine, penalty, or
   forfeiture” that is “payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit”
   and that “is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” 11 U.S.C.
   § 523(a)(7); see In re Schaffer, 515 F.3d 424, 428 (5th Cir. 2008). O’Dwyer
   concedes that at least one of the unpaid sanctions was imposed as a
   “penalty.” That sanction is payable to the Eastern District of Louisiana’s
   Attorney Disciplinary Fund. O’Dwyer argues that this sanction is
   dischargeable because the disciplinary fund does not “actually exist[]” as a
   “government unit.” Yet the Eastern District’s rules show otherwise. The
   fund exists, and its monies are devoted to, among other things,
   “reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses” for attorneys who
   serve to prosecute disciplinary actions. 1
          We find O’Dwyer’s remaining arguments unavailing, and we
   therefore AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          1
            E.D. La., Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, R. 9.1.1 (Mar. 1, 2022),
   https://www.laed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/LAWYER%20DISC%20RULES
   %20Amendments%203.1.22.pdf.

                                             3