McDonald v. Texas Nat Resrc

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41472
Summary Calendar
IN THE MATTER OF: CECIL McDONALD,
Debtor
------------------------------------------------------------------
CECIL McDONALD,
Appellant,
versus
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION,
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-00-CV-107)
--------------------
June 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this bankruptcy case, Pro Se Appellant McDonald, debtor in
the underlying bankruptcy proceeding, appeals from the district
court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion,
filed in January, 2000 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking
to overturn a 1996 nondischargeable judgment in favor of Appellee

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (“TNRCC”) rendered
by the bankruptcy court in an adversary proceeding. We decline
McDonald’s invitation to hold that the district court abused its
discretion in affirming the bankruptcy court’s refusal to grant
McDonald’s Rule 60(b) motion; instead, we dismiss this appeal as
frivolous, and, on our own motion, warn McDonald that we will not
tolerate any further efforts by him or on his behalf to prosecute
the captioned case, any aspect thereof, or any other matter in any
way arising from or connected with the case or the facts and
circumstances surrounding it. Should this admonition be
disregarded by McDonald, he shall be subject to the full panoply of
sanctions that are at our disposal.
Inasmuch as McDonald, TNRCC, the bankruptcy court, and the
district court are well familiar with and fully aware of the facts
and proceedings of this case from the beginning, we shall not waste
paper or judicial resources in reiterating them here. It suffices
that the unmistakable and undeniable picture painted by the history
and lengthy record of this case illustrates a wholly meritless,
vexatious, contumacious, and dilatory abuse of the judicial system
and its process by McDonald. The bankruptcy court’s disposition of
McDonald’s extremely tardy Rule 60(b) motion was a totally proper
exercise of that court’s discretion, arguably making McDonald’s
appeal to the district court frivolous. That McDonald chose to
aggravate the situation further by filing and prosecuting in this
court an appeal from the district court’s equally proper exercise
of its discretion in affirming the bankruptcy court constitutes

-- 2 of 3 --

3
behavior that justifies our immediate imposition of sanctions under
our inherent powers. Exercising extreme restraint, however, we
refrain from doing so, instead cautioning McDonald in the strongest
possible terms against taking any further actions or making any
further efforts whatsoever to prosecute this case or otherwise
prolong or extend the litigation arising from or connected with it.
To put it as plainly and succinctly as we can: This entire action
is over; this litigation is finished; and this Appellant shall
immediately cease and desist from filing, in any court within this
circuit, any pleadings or other papers even remotely related to
this case or the facts and circumstances involved in or implicated
by it, under penalty of sanctions —— monetary, injunctive, contempt
—— should he fail to abide fully by the letter and spirit of this
ruling.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --