United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40625
Summary Calendar
LEO ROGERS DUGAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILL PARKER, United States Bankruptcy Judge,
Defendant-Appellee,
HUGH T. ECHOLS, SR.,
Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-113-RHC
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leo Rogers Dugas filed the instant suit in state court to
challenge the propriety of a bankruptcy order (the Order) issued
by United States Bankruptcy Judge Parker. Judge Parker removed
the suit to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss it based
on, inter alia, his contention that the suit was barred by
absolute judicial immunity. Dugas filed a motion to remand the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40625
-2-
case to state court, and he argued that Judge Parker’s lack of
jurisdiction to issue the Order deprived the federal courts of
jurisdiction over the instant suit. Dugas moved to recuse the
district court judge, arguing that the district court’s prior
affirmance of the Order showed that it could not be impartial in
the instant matter.
The district court granted Judge Parker’s motion to dismiss
and denied Dugas’s motions for remand and recusal. The district
court sua sponte issued a sanction against both Dugas and his
attorney, Hugh T. Echols, Sr., after finding that they had acted
in bad faith and had filed frivolous, vexatious pleadings.
Dugas argues that the district court erred in granting Judge
Parker’s motion to dismiss because Judge Parker was wholly
without jurisdiction to issue the Order. This argument is
frivolous. The Order was a judicial act, and Judge Parker was
not wholly without jurisdiction to grant it. Judge Parker was
thus entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the district
court did not err by granting his motion to dismiss. See Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991); Ammons v. Baldwin, 705 F.2d
1445, 1447 (5th Cir. 1983).
The district court did not err in determining that it had
jurisdiction over the instant suit and denying Dugas’s motion to
remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The district court likewise did
not err in denying Dugas’s motion to recuse, as this motion was
based on a prior adverse ruling. See Liteky v. United States,
No. 04-40625
-3-
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Dugas’s arguments to the contrary are
wholly lacking in merit, as are his arguments concerning the
propriety of the district court’s grant of Judge Parker’s motion
to dismiss Dugas’s suit. Dugas’s appeal is DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS to the extent he challenges the district court’s
dismissal of his suit and its denial of his motions to remand and
for recusal. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Finally, Dugas and Echols argue that the district court
erred in invoking its inherent power to sua sponte sanction them.
Their arguments on this issue are unavailing. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Dugas and Echols.
See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Toon v.
Wackenhut Corrections Corp., 250 F.3d 950 (5th Cir. 2001). The
judgment of the district court imposing a sanction upon Dugas and
Echols is AFFIRMED.
This court has previously warned Dugas that he could be
sanctioned if he persisted in filing frivolous motions, suits, or
appeals. Because Dugas did not heed this warning, he is ORDERED
to pay a sanction in the amount of $500, payable to the Clerk of
this Court. See 5TH CIR. R. 3. The Clerk of this Court and the
clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are
directed to refuse to file any civil complaint or appeal by Dugas
unless Dugas submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If
Dugas attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original
No. 04-40625
-4-
proceedings in this court without such proof, the clerk will
docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other
submissions that do not show proof that the sanction has been
paid will neither be addressed nor acknowledged. Dugas is WARNED
that filing additional frivolous motions, suits, or appeals will
invite the imposition of an additional, harsher sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED; $500 MONETARY SANCTION IMPOSED ON
APPELLANT DUGAS; FURTHER SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.