United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20856
Conference Calendar
DARRELL J. HARPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NANCY F. ATLAS; KEITH P. ELLISON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-MC-351
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell J. Harper moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
to appeal the denial of IFP in the district court. A movant for
leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and
that the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents
nonfrivolous issues. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Harper has been permanently enjoined from filing suit in the
Southern District of Texas without first obtaining the written
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20856
-2-
permission of Judge Lynn Hughes and paying the filing fees for
all of his earlier cases. Harper v. City View, No. 4:02-CV-04126
(S.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2002) (unpublished). The injunction was
motivated by Harper’s history of filing frivolous lawsuits. See
Harper v. Hughes, No. 4:02-CV-03152 (S.D. Tex. July 22, 2002)
(unpublished). Such sanctions are authorized by the federal
rules. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2). Harper’s insistence on
filing lawsuits in the Southern District of Texas in flagrant
disregard of the terms of the injunction supports a determination
that the sanction was commensurate with the objected-to conduct.
Harper therefore has failed to show that he will raise any
nonfrivolous issues for appeal. His IFP motion is therefore
denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
We have twice warned Harper that the filing or prosecution
of frivolous appeals would result in the imposition of sanctions.
Harper v. Beck, No. 04-20782 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2005)
(unpublished); Harper v. City of Houston, No. 04-20787 (5th Cir.
June 21, 2005) (unpublished). In light of yet another frivolous
filing on his part, Harper is ordered to pay sanctions in the
amount of $100, 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 civil complaint
or appeal by Harper unless Harper submits proof of satisfaction
of this sanction. If Harper attempts to file any further notices
No. 05-20856
-3-
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. This sanction is imposed in addition to all other
sanctions currently in force against Harper.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.