Anderson v. Roche

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 1, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20796
Summary Calendar
GLENN FRANKLIN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES G. ROCHE, Secretary of the Air Force,
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
EFREM LYDELL SCRANTON,
Movant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-481
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Glenn Franklin Anderson appeals the
district court’s order dismissing his petition for failure to
obtain leave to proceed prior to filing. This appeal was
improvidently docketed and is dismissed because Anderson did not
obtain written permission to proceed from a judge of this court

-- 1 of 2 --

2
prior to filing his appeal. See Anderson v. United States Air
Force, No. 95-20660 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 1996) (unpublished).
Anderson is sanctioned $500 and is barred from filing any pro
se, in forma pauperis, civil appeals in this court without the
prior written approval of an active judge of this court. Further,
he is barred from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, initial
civil pleading in any court that is subject to this court’s
jurisdiction without first obtaining advance written permission of
a judge of the forum court. Additionally, the clerk of this court
and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to the
jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Anderson,
unfiled, any attempted submission, including any motion requesting
leave to proceed, until Anderson has paid in full all outstanding
sanctions.
Movant-Appellant Efrem Lydell Scranton appeals the district
court’s denial as moot of his motion to join as a party. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scranton’s
motion. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.
43, 67 (1997). Thus, Scranton’s appeal is without arguable merit
and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN LEAVE TO PROCEED, AND
SANCTIONS IMPOSED AS TO ANDERSON; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS AS
TO SCRANTON.

-- 2 of 2 --