Burch v. Aurzada, No. 20-10828 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit __________________ No. 20-10709 consolidated with No. 20-10828 Summary Calendar __________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk In the Matter of William Paul Burch, Debtor, William Paul Burch, Appellant, versus Areya Holder Aurzada, Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-525 USDC No. 4:20-CV-766 Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022 No. 20-10709 c/w No. 20-10828 Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* William Paul Burch appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his appeals arising from a proceeding in the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Texas. The bankruptcy appeals were dismissed after Burch failed to pay the required filing fees. Burch has moved to remand the cases to the district court. He asserts that he is now able to pay the filing fees because his financial situation has improved. Also, he moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeals. To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not be frivolous. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). If the appeal is frivolous, this court will dismiss it. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Even before Burch’s concessions regarding his improved financial situation, we concluded that he was not financially eligible to proceed IFP on appeal. See Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 850 F. App’x 292, 293 (5th Cir. 2021). Also, his conclusional assertions effectively fail to identify any error in the dismissal of his bankruptcy appeals for failing to pay the filing fees, and he has not shown a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Thus, the motions to proceed IFP are denied, and the appeals are dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion to remand the cases is denied. Because Burch failed to heed our prior sanctions warnings and our direction to withdraw any pending appeals that were frivolous, we previously * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2 Case: 20-10709 Document: 00516307969 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022 No. 20-10709 c/w No. 20-10828 imposed monetary sanctions. Burch v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Matter of Burch), No. 20-11171, 2022 WL 212836, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022) (unpublished) ($250 sanction); Burch v. America’s Servicing Company (Matter of Burch), No. 20-11074, 2021 WL 5286563, *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (unpublished) ($100 sanction). Burch, who has paid the monetary sanctions, has repeatedly ignored our admonitions, and we conclude that an additional monetary sanction is warranted. Burch is hereby ordered to pay $500.00 to the clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Burch unfiled any submissions he should make until the sanction imposed in this matter is paid in full. We again warn Burch that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in the imposition of further sanctions. Burch is once again admonished to review any pending appeals and to withdraw any that are frivolous. MOTIONS FRIVOLOUS; DENIED; APPEALS SANCTIONS DISMISSED IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 3 AS ADDITIONAL
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
