Nesfield v. Natl Maritime Union, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 01-20417
Summary Calendar
_______________
DALE D. NESFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
NATIONAL MARITIME UNION; NICHOLAS BACHKO COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
AND
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
m H-99-CV-2634
_________________________
November 29, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
I.
Dale Nesfield, a pro se litigant, appeals the
dismissal of claims related to his job termina-
tion by Nicholas Bachko Company, Incorpo-
rated, that have already been rejected twice by
this court. See Nesfield v. United States Coast
* 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determined that this opinion should not be published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 circum- stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Guard, No. 00-20081 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2000)
(unpublished); Nesfield v. Nat’l Maritime
Union, No. 99-21022 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000)
(unpublished). On the second occasion, Nes-
field was sanctioned and fined $100 for filing
a frivolous appeal and was warned that “fur-
ther frivolous appeals will result in the imposi-
tion of additional sanctions.” Nesfield v. Unit-
ed States Coast Guard, at 2.
Despite this warning, Nesfield has chosen
to file yet another appeal raising the same is-
sues. He now claims that his case should be
reconsidered because the defendants’ actions
have allegedly triggered the onset of his dia-
betic condition.
The district court held that Nesfield had
failed to provide sufficient evidence either to
reinstate his case or to begin a new lawsuit. A
dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) is
subject to de novo review. Jackson v. City of
Beaumont Police Dep’t, 958 F.2d 616, 618
(5th Cir. 1992). Denial of a FED. R. CIV. P. 60
motion to set aside an earlier judgment is sub-
ject to review only for abuse of discretion.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljberg Enters., Inc., 38
F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).
We need not decide which standard is ap-
plicable here, because Nesfield has failed to
present sufficient evidence to justify overruling
the district court’s decision under either. The
appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed. 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.
II.
“This court is authorized to impose sanc-
tions upon those who pursue frivolous ap-
peals,” and “[a] litigant’s pro se status does
not preclude imposition of [such] sanctions.”
Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 495-96 (5th
Cir. 1987). Because Nesfield has chosen to ig-
nore this court’s warning to desist from filing
further frivolous appeals, it is ordered that he
be sanctioned wit h a fine of $100; he is or-
dered to remit payment to the clerk of this
court within thirty days of the issuance of the
mandate in this case. Nesfield is once again
warned, in the strongest possible terms, that
further frivolous appeals can, and likely will,
result in the imposition of additional sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS
IMPOSED.

-- 2 of 2 --