Court Opinion

ID: 9399428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-03 00:00:34.237748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:06.508633
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40336        Document: 00516773297             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/02/2023

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

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     June 2, 2023
                                      No. 22-40336                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Richard A. Dunsmore,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-20
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Richard A. Dunsmore, Texas Civil Commitment Center resident
   # 06526120, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
   from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Brazoria County
   Clerk, Rhonda Barchak, challenging Barchak’s alleged refusal to file
   pleadings involving Dunsmore’s civil commitment. Barchak did not file
   Dunsmore’s pleadings because of an order requiring pre-filing authorization

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40336      Document: 00516773297          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/02/2023

                                    No. 22-40336

   by an administrative judge due to Dunsmore’s status as a vexatious litigant.
   He also moves for the appointment of appellate counsel.
          Dunsmore asserts that the district court judge acted with malfeasance
   and bias and colluded with Judge Lamar McCorkle, who had issued the
   vexatious litigant order, and that the district court’s judgment and IFP denial
   seem to perpetuate Judge McCorkle’s alleged cover-up.                However,
   Dunsmore has not provided any additional facts or arguments supporting
   these conclusory assertions, nor has he otherwise raised a nonfrivolous issue
   that any alleged bias was based on an extrajudicial source or a high degree of
   antagonism. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
          Dunsmore also challenges his underlying civil commitment, asserts
   that Barchak refused to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and
   contends that he has had no opportunity for review of the case in which the
   vexatious litigant order was issued. He further contends that forbidding him
   from filing violates his constitutional rights. However, these conclusory
   arguments provide no specific facts or contentions refuting the district
   court’s determinations that there was no indication in the record that
   Dunsmore sought authorization to file a habeas corpus petition or other
   pleading challenging the vexatious litigant statute or the vexatious litigant
   order, nor do they challenge the district court’s determinations that Judge
   McCorkle had judicial immunity and that Dunsmore had not shown that the
   Texas court’s refusal to file his petition due to his failure to obtain
   authorization in accordance with the Texas vexatious litigant statute violated
   his rights. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101(a); Baum v. Blue
   Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 193 (5th Cir. 2008); Ballard v. Wall, 413
   F.3d 510, 515 (5th Cir. 2005).
          In light of the foregoing, Dunsmore fails to raise a nonfrivolous
   argument challenging the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint.

                                             2
Case: 22-40336    Document: 00516773297          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/02/2023

                                  No. 22-40336

   Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED
   as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The
   motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

                                           3