Court Opinion

ID: 9925418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 19:00:46.803529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:22.891226
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50349         Document: 00517037889             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/19/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                           January 19, 2024
                                       No. 23-50349
                                     Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   Linda Baldwin,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:23-CV-426
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Linda Baldwin filed a pro se civil rights action against District Court
   Judge Robert Pitman, alleging that he had violated her constitutional rights
   and had discriminated against her through his adverse rulings on prior
   lawsuits challenging the denial of workers’ compensation benefits, and asking
   that all orders and opinions by Judge Pitman in her prior cases be thrown out.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50349      Document: 00517037889          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/19/2024

                                    No. 23-50349

   The district court noted that Baldwin had been previously barred from filing
   a cause of action without obtaining approval from a federal district or
   magistrate judge; to the extent that Baldwin was seeking authorization to file,
   the district court concluded that her claims were frivolous. Baldwin then
   moved to reopen the case, asserting that Judge Pitman and the district court
   judge who had ruled on her action were biased against her. The district court
   denied the motion to reopen, again concluding that Baldwin’s attempts to
   challenge the validity of prior rulings should have been through direct appeals
   in those cases. Baldwin has now filed a motion for authorization to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the
   district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith
   because Baldwin will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v.
   Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          Before this court, Baldwin repeats her assertions that Judge Pitman’s
   prior rulings were wrong and evinced bias against her and that she is entitled
   to reconsideration of those decisions. She also maintains that the district
   court should not have entered the vexatious litigant order in an earlier action.
   Baldwin has not shown that the district court erred in ruling that any
   challenges to those earlier rulings should have been presented in appeals from
   those cases, rather than through new lawsuits. See Alvestad v. Monsanto Co.,
   671 F.2d 908, 912 (5th Cir. 1982) (noting we review such decisions under an
   abuse of discretion standard). In addition, she has not shown that her
   assertions of bias against the district judge who ruled in those cases could not
   have been raised and appealed in those proceedings. See Liteky v. United
   States, 510 U.S. 540, 543-56 (1994). Thus, Baldwin has not established that
   her proposed claims were nonfrivolous or that the district court erred in
   denying her leave to file the complaint.
          The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Baldwin’s motion

                                          2
Case: 23-50349       Document: 00517037889           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/19/2024

                                      No. 23-50349

   to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See
   id.; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Baldwin’s motion to
   reinstate a dissent order is DENIED.
          The instant case is Baldwin’s eighth attempt in federal court to
   challenge the denial of workers’ compensation benefits arising from injuries
   she suffered in 2006 and 2007. The district court has barred Baldwin from
   filing further actions without obtaining consent from a federal district or
   magistrate judge. In addition, this court has previously barred Baldwin from
   filing further pleadings in an unsuccessful appeal. Despite these limits,
   Baldwin continues to file frivolous pleadings. Accordingly, Baldwin is
   WARNED that any further attempts to challenge the denial of benefits
   arising from her injuries in 2006 and 2007, against any party, will invite the
   imposition of sanctions. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th
   Cir. 1988) (holding that this court has the inherent power to sanction litigants
   for frivolous or repetitive filings).

                                           3