United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 4, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40186
Summary Calendar
DEVENDRA PRAKASH BABULAL BANSAL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
HIPOLITO M. ACOSTA,
District Director,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CV-722
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Devendra Bansal appeals from the district court's denial of
his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion following the dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for want of prosecution. The district
court held that the Rule 60(b) motion, filed over two years after
the dismissal of the case, was untimely. Bansal argues that the
one-year filing period for Rule 60(b) motions should be excused
because he was not at fault for failing to advise the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40186
-2-
court of his change of address given that he did not know the
docket number of the instant case.
Bansal fails to explain how or when he learned of the docket
number and why he could not have discovered the information
sooner, and he has not shown that the district court's ruling was
an abuse of discretion. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg
Enter., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994); Seven Elves,
Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). The appeal
is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is
frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Bansal, who was suspended from school and deported to India
in May 2001 following two misdemeanor convictions for harassment
in Texas, has a long history of challenging his convictions,
suspension, and deportation in numerous appeals.** We recently
determined that Bansal has exhibited a pattern of filing
repetitive suits that abuses the judicial system. Bansal v.
Consulate General of India, No. 03-20625 (5th Cir. May 24,
2004)(unpublished). Bansal's continued practice of filing
**
See Bansal v. Warden, No. 00-41338 (5th Cir. Feb. 21,
2002)(unpublished); Bansal v. Warden, No. 01-41454 (5th Cir. June
26, 2002)(unpublished); Bansal v. State of Texas, No. 02-40540
(5th Cir. May 15, 2003)(unpublished); Bansal v. Warden, No.
03-40712 (5th Cir. June 3, 2003)(unpublished); Bansal v. Orange
City Mayor, No. 03-41219 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2003)(unpublished);
Bansal v. Lamar Univ., No. 02-41505 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2004)
(unpublished); Bansal v. Warden, No. 03-41110 (5th Cir. March 16,
2004) (unpublished); Bansal v. State of Texas, No. 03-40713 (5th
Cir. March 18, 2004) (unpublished).
No. 04-40186
-3-
frivolous appeals in light of previous warnings merits the
imposition of sanctions. See FED. R. APP. P. 38; Freeze v.
Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1988); Green v. Carlson,
649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1981).
Bansal is ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,000,
payable to the Clerk of this Court. The Clerk of this Court and
the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are
directed to refuse to file any pro se action or appeal by Bansal
unless Bansal submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If
Bansal attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original
proceedings in this court without such proof the clerk will
docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other
submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been
paid will be neither addressed nor acknowledged.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.