IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30082
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH JOHNSON; WARDELL QUEZERGUE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TUFF N RUMBLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Etc; ET AL.,
Defendants,
TUFF N RUMBLE MANAGEMENT, INC., doing business
as Tuff City Records,
versus Defendant-Appellee,
JOE JONES, JR., doing business as Melder Publishing,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1374-R
--------------------
March 12, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Jones, Jr., d/b/a/ Melder Publishing appeals the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Joseph Johnson, Wardell Quezerque,
and Tuff-n-Rumble Management, d/b/a/ Tuff City Records in the
underlying declaratory judgment and copyright infringement
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30082
-2-
action. Jones avers that the district court erred in finding
that there was no genuine issue as to a material fact with regard
to his alleged part ownership of a copyright interest in the
subject song and erred in finding that the documents which he
relied upon to show his ownership interest were irrelevant and/or
forgeries.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not err in finding that the proffered documents upon
which Jones relied to establish his ownership interest were
irrelevant and/or forgeries. Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989
F.2d 822, 824 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the record before the
district court which was devoid of any competent summary-judgment
evidence establishing Jones’ part ownership interest in the song,
the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in
favor of the appellees on their infringement claim and awarding
damages and attorneys fees. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). In light of Jones’ continued reliance on
documents previously determined by the court to be irrelevant
and/or forgeries, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
This is not the first time that Jones has filed frivolous
appeals in this court. See Makedwde v. Johnson, No. 95-30472,
(5th Cir. Mar. 27, 1997); Makedwde v. Johnson, No. 97-30899, (5th
Cir. May 6, 1999); Johnson v. Tuff-n-Rumble Management, Inc., No.
01-30082 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2001).
Despite the district court and this court’s repeated
warnings regarding the filing of frivolous pleadings and the
imposition of sanctions, Jones continues in his abuse of the
No. 01-30082
-3-
judicial system. Jones’ continued reliance on documents found to
be irrelevant and/or forgeries and his continued insinuations
before the district court and this court that the appellees and
their attorneys committed fraud in the prosecution of their case
warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions.
We hereby put Jones on notice and order Jones to show cause
why we should not award reasonable attorney’s fees and double
costs to the appellees pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 38. See Shinn
v. College Station Indep. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 783, 786-87 (5th
Cir. 1996). Jones’ response shall be filed within 15 days of the
issuance of this opinion.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED.