IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51118
Summary Calendar
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. DISTRICT COURT; L. STUART PLATT,
U.S. Magistrate; W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR.,
U.S. District Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CV-167
--------------------
November 9, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In his appeal No. 98-51118, arising out of his civil rights
lawsuit, Keith Russell Judd, federal prisoner # 11593-051, attempts
to challenge a magistrate judge’s order requiring him to submit to
a psychiatric examination in a related criminal case, MO-98-CR-93-
F. His attempt to directly appeal that order was dismissed by this
court for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, as moot. See
United States v. Judd, No. 98-50954 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 1998)
(unpublished). The clerk of this court sent Judd a special
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-51118
-2-
briefing notice directing him to address whether the order is
appealable in this civil rights case and whether the present appeal
is also moot; however, Judd has not responded to the briefing
notice and has thus waived the argument. See Cinel v. Connick, 15
F.3d 1338, 1334 (5th Cir. 1994).
There is no final, appealable order in the instant civil
rights case for this court to review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Alternatively, because Judd has already undergone the challenged
psychiatric evaluation, the issue is moot. His appeal is wholly
without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Judd’s motions to consolidate appeals, for release pending appeal,
to expedite his appeal, for oral argument, for hearing en banc, to
transfer his appeal, for extraordinary relief, and for summary
judgment are DENIED.
Judd has previously been warned that the filing of future
frivolous appeals would invite sanctions. See Judd v. University
of New Mexico, No. 97-50242 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 1997)(unpublished).
After ignoring that admonition, Judd was sanctioned $105 for
pursuing a frivolous appeal, which sanction has not yet been paid.
See Judd v. University of New Mexico, No. 98-51060 (5th Cir. May
13, 1999)(unpublished). Judd filed the instant appeal before the
sanction order was imposed. Because Judd continues his pattern of
filing frivolous appeals despite this court’s warnings, he is again
ORDERED to pay a sanction in the amount of $105, payable to the
clerk of this court, thereby doubling the amount of the sanction he
owes. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.
No. 98-51118
-3-
1988)(this court may impose sanctions on a litigant sua sponte).
The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district
courts within this Circuit are DIRECTED to refuse to file any pro
se civil complaint or appeal by Judd unless Judd submits proof of
satisfaction of this sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED.