United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 2, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
No. 02-20332
_____________________
JOHN H. BAKER, III; BRANARD BROCHSTEIN; MARK COLLINS; DANIELS
& COLLINS PROFESSIONAL CORP.; ALLEN B. DANIELS; BEN B. FLOYD;
FLOYD, ISGUR, RIOS & WAHRLICH PROFESSIONAL CORP.; HOUSTON BAR
ASSOCIATION; LAWRENCE J. FOSSI; DANIEL E. O’CONNELL, Chapter
13 Trustee; HUGH M. RAY, III; RICHARD SCHMIDT, Honorable;
RICHARD SIMMONS; STATE BAR OF TEXAS
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; ET AL.
Defendants
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA JEAN LLOYD
Defendants - Appellants
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________
No. 02-20404
_____________________
In The Matter Of: CASSONDRA LLOYD; CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD
Debtors
---------------------------
CASSONDRA LLOYD, doing business as Big Oaks
Materials, also known as Yahweh Kingdom People; CLAUDE HUGH
LLOYD, doing business as Big Oaks Materials, also known as
Yahweh Kingdom People
Appellants
v.
RICHARD SIMMONS, U. S. Trustee; RICHARD SCHMIDT, Judge U. S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston
Victoria Division; DANIEL E. O’CONNELL, Chapter 13 Trustee;
BEN B. FLOYD; HUGH RAY; THOMAS J. PEARSON; ALLEN B. DANIELS;
MARK B. COLLINS; MARJORIE PAYNE BRITT; EDMUND L. COGBURN; JOHN
H. BAKER, III; LAURANCE FOSSI; BRANARD H. BROCHESTEIN; STEWART
TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA INC.; LAWYERS TITLE CO.; HOUSTON
BAR ASSOCIATION; SUPREME COURT
Appellees
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________
No. 02-20531
_____________________
In The Matter Of: CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA DOUGLAS LLOYD
Debtors
---------------------------
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD; CASSONDRA DOUGLAS LLOYD
Appellants
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________
No. 02-20573
_____________________
In The Matter Of: THOMAS J. PEARSON; CAROLYN PEARSON
Debtors
---------------------------
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD, JR.; CASSONDRA LLOYD
Appellants
---------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
---------------------
2
Before JOLLY, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Appellees in these consolidated appeals filed an
“Application for District Court to Enforce Multiple Injunctions
Against Vexatious Litigants” on the district court’s miscellaneous
docket. The district court issued a show cause order and conducted
a hearing on the Application. The district court found that the
Appellants, Claude Hugh Lloyd, Jr. and Cassondra Lloyd, had
violated a bankruptcy court’s order imposing pre-filing
restrictions against them; that they had conspired with Barbara
Youngs Settle, who is also the subject of pre-filing restrictions
imposed against her by this court and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, to engage in conduct
violative of other orders; and that the proceedings were “totally
and wholly frivolous.” The district court entered an order
dismissing all pending cases in the bankruptcy and district courts
of the Southern District of Texas, and imposed pre-filing
restrictions requiring the Lloyds to obtain the court’s permission
before filing any new letters or pleadings in those courts.
In these consolidated appeals, the Lloyds challenge the
district court’s order, as well as the dismissal of three other
proceedings pursuant to the district court’s order. In their pro
*
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.
3
se brief, much of which is incomprehensible and incoherent, the
Lloyds argue that: (1) the Application filed on the district
court’s miscellaneous docket was invalid because it did not satisfy
the standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 12(b)(6), and
56(e); (2) the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter
the order in the miscellaneous action, because the original
contempt order against the Lloyds was issued by a different court;
(3) the show cause hearing in the miscellaneous action was improper
because the parties were not placed under oath prior to their
testimony; (4) the district court was biased and prejudiced against
them because of his previous experience with Settle; (5) the
district court erred by excluding evidence; (6) the pre-filing
restrictions imposed against them by the district court violate the
First and Fifth Amendments and deny them substantive and procedural
due process; and (7) their pending cases in the Southern District
of Texas should not have been dismissed.
The district court’s findings that the Lloyds had engaged in
vexatious conduct, and had knowingly violated pre-filing
restrictions imposed against them, are not clearly erroneous. The
district court also correctly observed that the proceedings filed
by the Lloyds were “totally and wholly frivolous.” Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the
pending proceedings filed by the Lloyds in the Southern District of
Texas and by imposing reasonable pre-filing restrictions to prevent
4
them from further abusing the judicial process. The other pending
proceedings filed by the Lloyds were properly dismissed pursuant to
the district court’s order in the miscellaneous action.
The Lloyds’ appeals are DISMISSED as frivolous and entirely
without merit. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
D I S M I S S E D.
5