United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 12, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20710
Summary Calendar
In the Matter Of: CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD, CASSONDRA JEAN LLOYD,
Debtors
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD, also known as Yahweh Kingdom People, also
known as Ancient Oaks Sanctuary; CASSONDRA JEAN LLOYD, also known
as Cassondra Douglas Lloyd,
Appellants
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-BK-01-41075
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal is the latest in a series of frivolous filings by
Appellants Claude Hugh Lloyd and Cassondra Jean Lloyd. Over the
past several years, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd have burdened this court and
the district court with numerous motions and briefs apparently
designed to obstruct the seizure of their real property for
nonpayment of property taxes. This strategy finally forced the
district court to dismiss all pending cases filed by the Lloyds in
the bankruptcy and district courts of the Southern District 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
03-20710
-2-
Texas and to impose pre-filing restrictions requiring the Lloyds to
obtain the court’s permission before filing any new letters or
pleadings. A panel of this court affirmed that order, dismissed
the Lloyds’ appeal as frivolous, and imposed sanctions. The panel
also ordered the clerk not to accept any further filings from the
Lloyds until they had paid the sanctions. Although the Lloyds have
failed to pay the sanctions, the clerk’s office accepted the
Lloyd’s latest brief and motions because they had filed the notice
of appeal in the present appeal prior to the imposition of
sanctions.
This latest brief and the motions that accompany it are
largely incomprehensible. To the extent the Lloyds have renewed
their objections to the district court order striking their
pleadings, we have already rejected those arguments as frivolous.
To the extent the Lloyds raise new issues, we can discern no
argument meritorious enough to warrant analysis.
We once again DISMISS the Lloyd’s appeals and all pending
motions as frivolous and entirely without merit. See 5th Cir. R.
42.2. The clerk of this court will accept no further filings by
the Lloyds until they have paid the outstanding sanctions. Should
the Lloyds feel inclined to persist in filing frivolous appeals, we
once again warn them that this court has the authority to sanction
appellants on its own motion. See Conner v. Travis County, 209
F.3d 794, 801 (5th Cir. 2000). We will not hesitate to exercise
that authority if necessary.
DISMISSED.