United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 3, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40330
Summary Calendar
CAROLYN FOSTER; MURRELL FOSTER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
T. JOHN WARD, An individual; BILLY FOX BRANSON,
An individual; DONALD W. CAPSHAW, An individual;
WILLIAM J. CORNELIUS, An individual; VALERIE
FARWELL, An individual; RAYMOND W. JORDAN, An
individual; BILL PEEK, An individual; LANNY
RAMSAY, An individual; MARGARET J. REEVES,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CV-185
______________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carolyn and Murrell Foster appeal the dismissal of their 42
U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to judicial immunity and FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b) and 12(b)(6). We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
Judge Ward is absolutely immune from suit, and the Fosters'
argument that the district court misapplied the doctrine of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
judicial immunity is without merit.1 We find no abuse of
discretion in the district court's stay of discovery.2 Finally, by
failing to address in their opening brief the district court's Rule
41(b) and 12(b)(6) dismissal, the Fosters have abandoned the issue
on appeal.3
This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
dismissed.4 The Fosters' brief contains numerous insulting
references to the district judge and three members of this court
who previously issued a ruling adverse to the Fosters. The Fosters
have already been cautioned that the use of abusive language in
pleadings will not be tolerated.5 In light of the Fosters'
continued use of their pleadings to launch frivolous attacks
against members of the judiciary, we hereby impose monetary
sanctions against the Fosters in the amount of $500, payable to the
clerk of this court for deposit into the Treasury of the United
1
See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978);
Brinkmann v. Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir. 1986).
2
See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876
(5th Cir. 2000).
3
See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994);
FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); see also Taita Chemical Co., Ltd. v.
Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 384 n.9 (5th Cir. 2001).
4
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983).
5
See Foster v. Moye, No. 02-41647 (5th Cir. June 24, 2003).
2
States in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 711(c).6 The clerk of this
court is instructed to refuse to accept any further filings from
the Fosters in this or any other appeal until such monetary
sanction is paid in full.7
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
6
See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360
(5th Cir. 1986).
7
Id.
3