UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-10784
Summary Calendar
_______________________
ALONZO DIEGO FULLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM B. DONAHOO, Sheriff of Brown County,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(6:92-CV-053-C)
_________________________________________________________________
July 24, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal represents Fuller’s fourth attempt to
overturn a district court sanction order which barred him from
filing anymore lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas until he
pays a $250 sanction. In the instant appeal, Fuller contends that
this order deprives him of access to the courts and the ability to
file a habeas corpus petition. The order’s validity has been
established on direct appeal. Fuller has had ample prior
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
opportunity to assert that the order would effect an
unconstitutional denial of his access to the courts as an IFP
litigant. We decline to consider this late-raised additional
ground for challenging the sanction order.
Fuller incurred the original sanction order because he
threatened to incite a litigation bloodbath against Sheriff Donahoo
and Brown County. This court affirmed the sanction under the
standard set forth in Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc., 836
F.2d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). In 1995, Fuller filed
a second “notice of appeal,” seeking to have the sanction order
modified so that he could file another civil rights action. This
court dismissed the appeal as barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
Subsequently, Fuller filed a petition for mandamus
relief, requesting this court to compel the district court to
accept for filing a habeas corpus petition that had been rejected
by the district court clerk. See In re: Fuller, No. 95-00126 (5th
Cir., June 23, 1995) (unpublished). This court concluded that
mandamus relief was not appropriate because Fuller had another
remedy by means of filing a motion in the district court requesting
clarification of the sanction order or that it be lifted to permit
the filing of the habeas corpus action.
Fuller unsuccessfully sought the district court’s
clarification or modification of the sanction order to permit him
to file a habeas corpus petition. He has again appealed.
2
Fuller’s arguments in this appeal are simply variations
on the theme he has consistently pursued, that the district court’s
sanction was an abuse of discretion and not issued in accord with
governing Fifth Circuit standards. This court rejected those
arguments on his first appeal. This panel is powerless to alter
the law of the case. Chevron U.S. A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co.,
987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993). Fuller’s argument that the
sanction order unconstitutionally denies his access to the courts
to pursue a habeas corpus petition could have been raised in the
original appeal. This argument does not constitute a new or
different ground for relief from the order. Fuller waived this
argument by not raising it in his first appeal. He cites no
grounds for advancing this argument or any other argument as the
basis for avoiding the law of the case doctrine.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
3