United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40287
Summary Calendar
LUANNE MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EXXON MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation,
f/k/a MOBIL OIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division
USDC No. 1:00-CV-839
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Luanne Moore appeals the denial of her Motion for
Relief from Judgment which granted Defendant Exxon Mobil
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment in her employment
action against the defendant. We Affirm.
I.
A summary review of the procedural history of this case
demonstrates the basis for our judgment in this case. On
September 30, 2002, the district court granted Exxon Mobil’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-40287
-2-
Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Moore’s gender
discrimination suit with prejudice. The district court concluded
that Moore had not come forward with sufficient evidence that the
explanation offered by Exxon Mobil for her termination (well
documented poor job performance) was a pretext for gender
discrimination. Her claim of sexual harassment was dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court
also concluded that the conduct alleged in Moore’s complaint did
not rise to the level necessary to support Moore’s claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress. After her petition
for rehearing was denied, Moore appealed. This court summarily
affirmed the judgment of the district court on May 16, 2003, on
the basis of the district court’s opinion. After her petition
for rehearing was denied by this court, Moore filed a writ of
certiorari with the United Supreme Court. On November 3, 2003,
the Supreme Court denied Moore’s writ application.
Meanwhile, Moore was also pursuing allegations of judicial
misconduct against Judge Heartfield, the district court judge who
presided over her case, and his son, an attorney not associated
with this case. In August 2003, Moore filed a Complaint of
Misconduct against Judge Heartfield with this court. Moore’s
complaint questioned whether Judge Heartfield had a financial
interest in Exxon Mobil and complained that Judge Heartfield’s
son had represented Exxon Mobil in another case. In October
2
No. 04-40287
-3-
2003, Moore’s judicial misconduct complaint was dismissed for
lack of evidence of any actual conflict and because the complaint
related directly to the merits of the judge’s decision. At
Moore’s request, the dismissal was reviewed by an Appellate
Review Panel of the Judicial Council of this circuit and affirmed
in December 2003. During this same time period, Moore pursued a
complaint against Judge Heartfield with the State Bar of Texas.
That grievance was also dismissed.
In October 2003, Moore filed a Motion for Relief from
Judgment with the district court. The basis for the motion was
Moore’s allegation that Judge Heartfield may have had a conflict
of interest when he ruled against her. On January 27, 2004, the
district court denied Moore’s Petition for Relief from Judgment
and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Moore
challenges that order in this appeal.
After the district court’s ruling on Moore’s Motion for
Relief from Judgment, Exxon Mobil sought sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and requested reimbursement of
attorneys’ fees and costs expended in defending the baseless
motion. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and granted Exxon Mobil’s Motion for
Sanctions in part, ordering that plaintiff and her counsel are
prohibited from filing any additional papers in this proceeding.
Exxon Mobil’s request for fees and costs was denied.
3
No. 04-40287
-4-
Moore, now acting pro se, filed this appeal which again
raises allegations of misconduct against Judge Heartfield as
affecting his disposition of her case.
II.
As demonstrated by the repeated dismissals of Moore’s claims
in both her substantive case and her complaint of judicial
misconduct against Judge Heartfield, Moore’s Rule 60(b) motion,
which rests on the same foundation, is without factual basis or
legal support. The district court’s dismissal of Moore’s
underlying case was affirmed by this court after de novo review.
Also, Moore’s claims of judicial misconduct are totally without
merit. They have been dismissed after independent review by an
Appellate Review Panel of the Judicial Council of this circuit
and by the State Bar of Texas. The Oil, Gas & Mineral Lease
between members of the Heartfield family and Union Pacific
Resources Company, a company wholly unrelated to any of the
parties, (which Moore submits as “new evidence” to support her
assertions) does nothing to change the analysis.
Based on the above and our review of the remainder of the
record, we easily conclude that this appeal is frivolous. The
Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation recognized that “[c]ounsel
and Plaintiff have made a mockery of [their ethical] obligations
by putting forth the wholly unfounded allegations on file in this
civil action and in the judicial misconduct proceedings initiated
4
No. 04-40287
-5-
against Judge Heartfield.” As an alternative to monetary
sanctions, the district court ordered “that Plaintiff and her
counsel are precluded from filing any additional papers in this
proceeding.” As Moore persisted in pursuing this matter in the
face of this assessment of her case, we are persuaded that
monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,453.10 representing Exxon
Mobil’s attorney fees to defend this frivolous appeal are
warranted as authorized by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
IV.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court,
GRANT Moore’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, GRANT
Exxon Mobil’s Motion for Damages and Costs and award Exxon Mobil
damages against Moore in the amount of $5,453.10.
AFFIRMED.
5