Saunders v. Hastert, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10044
Conference Calendar
CHARLES E. SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. DENNIS HASTERT, The Honorable, Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the 106th Congress of the United States of
America; WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CV-3-C
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles E. Saunders appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to recuse and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,
1985, 1986 claims. Saunders argues that the district court judge
was not impartial. Saunders also contends that he demonstrated a
federal question which conferred subject matter jurisdiction and
that he showed an injury in fact.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-10044
-2-
Saunders has not demonstrated that a reasonable person would
harbor doubts about the district court judge’s impartiality
because he has not provided sufficient evidence to question the
district court judge’s impartiality. See Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).
Saunders lacks standing because he does not allege an injury in
fact. See Breaux v. United States Postal Serv., 202 F.3d 820,
820 (5th Cir. 2000). This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).
Saunders is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Saunders is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --