United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 13, 2006
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-21079
Summary Calendar
_______________________
In The Matter Of: BAQAR SHAH
Debtor
_________________________________________________________________
MAHENDRA R MEHTA,
Appellant,
versus
KENNETH HARRIS, Chapter 7 Trustee;
HOEHN/ANSELMO; ROLAND HOEHN; MARY PAT HOEHN;
ROWENA ANSELMO; FREDDIE ANSELMO; LARRY BAILEY;
MARY BAILEY; IRIS HENRY; BRINDA TURNER;
WILLIAM BUENO; SAUL ECHEVARRIA; YESENIA ECHEVARRIA;
LEROY JOHNSON, JR; MARTIN MORENO; MARIA ASCENCION;
SETH GASKILL; THERESA GASKILL; SCOTT OSTERBERG;
ANDREA OSTERBERG; WAUKEGAN CHURCH OF GOD; BRUCE HUGO;
WILLIS OWENS; DONNA OWENS; KEVIN A WILLIAMS;
MELISSA R WILLIAMS; KIMBERLY MCMILLON; WADDIOUS MCMILLON;
EUN HOE LEE; BRYAN BAREIKA; KAREN BAREIKA; BERNICE WATKINS;
WILLIE PETERSON; WILLIE PETERSON; MAXINE PETERSON;
LORENZO TUCKER; KIMBERLY ANN TUCKER,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Docket No. 4:05-CV-2621
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Appellant Mahendra Mehta appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his appeal and imposition of sanctions for filing a
frivolous appeal. Mehta appealed to the district court from a
bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions for filing a lawsuit
asserting claims owned by the bankruptcy estate in direct violation
of a court order. He now argues that the district court has
jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the court erred in
striking documents from the record. Because we agree with the
district court that this appeal is frivolous, we AFFIRM.
I. Background
The history of Mehta’s abuse of the litigation process is
long and tortured. The instant case arises out of Debtor Baqar
Shah’s 2001 petition for bankruptcy. Mehta, a licensed attorney,
is a judgment creditor of the Debtor. On January 9, 2003, Mehta
filed with the bankruptcy court an emergency motion to file a
lawsuit against the Debtor on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. The
bankruptcy court heard Mehta’s motion on February 3, 2003, but,
prior to the hearing and unknown to the bankruptcy court and the
Trustee, Mehta filed a lawsuit in the Trustee’s name. That same
day the bankruptcy court denied Mehta’s motion. Despite this
order, Mehta continued to prosecute the action in the Trustee’s
name. The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee’s motion to dismiss
the lawsuit and ordered sanctions against Mehta based upon his
filing and continued prosecution of the lawsuit after the court
2
denied him the authority to do so. The bankruptcy court ordered
Mehta to pay approximately $53,000 in attorneys’ fees, pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent powers to deter the
wrongful conduct of vexatious litigants. Mehta appealed the order
to the district court, which dismissed the appeal as frivolous and
imposed sanctions. He now appeals to this court.
II. Discussion
This is just the latest in a series of frivolous filings
and appeals by Mehta. See, e.g., In re Shah, 96 F.App’x. 943 (5th
Cir. 2004) (unpublished). In this case, Mehta again shows an
inability to follow federal court orders. The bankruptcy court
explicitly denied Mehta’s request to file a lawsuit on behalf of
the bankruptcy estate. Nevertheless, Mehta filed the lawsuit and
continued its prosecution in direct violation of the bankruptcy
court’s order.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Mehta’s appeal as frivolous. See In re Braniff Airways,
774 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1985). Mehta, the bankruptcy court,
and the district court are well aware of the lengthy record in this
case, and we will not reiterate the extent of Mehta’s vexatious use
of the judicial system. The bankruptcy court’s imposition of
sanctions for Mehta’s violation of a federal court order was wholly
within its discretion, rendering Mehta’s appeal to the district
3
court frivolous. See In re McDonald, 264 F.3d 1140 (5th Cir. 2001)
(unpublished).
Mehta prolonged the course of this litigation by
appealing the district court’s equally proper dismissal of his
appeal to this court. Mehta has pursued several unsuccessful
appeals to this court and has been warned by this court to desist
from burdening this court with frivolous appeals. See, e.g., Mehta
v. Havis (In re Shah), 2006 WL 2683386, at *1 n.2 (5th Cir. Sept.
29, 2006) (unpublished); In re Shah, 96 F.App’x 943 (5th Cir. 2004)
(unpublished). We now hope to end his illegitimate campaign.
It is ORDERED that we will accept no more notices of
appeal from Mehta in cases arising in or related to the underlying
Baqar Shah bankruptcy without a prior motion and order of this
court permitting appeal.
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS ORDERED.
4