David Whitehead v. White & Case, L.L.P.

519 F. App'x 330

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2013
• Docket: 12-30757
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: **

David Louis Whitehead moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to state a claim. He also moves for sanctions, for appoint ment of counsel, for injunctive relief due to fraud, to remand or transfer the case, to transfer the appeal, to file a supplemental brief after oral argument, to amend the caption, to attach a document to the record excerpts, to supplement the record, for injunctive relief, and to correct a copyright certificate.

In his IFP motion, Whitehead first argues that the district court erred by failing to provide reasons for its denial of IFP status on appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(2) requires that a district court provide reasons for the denial of IFP status. In the instant case, the district court’s order failed to indicate whether the denial was based on Whitehead’s financial status or a determination that an appeal would be frivolous. We need not remand the case to the district court for it to provide us its reasons because our review reveals that the appeal is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cm. R. 42.2.

In his myriad pleadings, Whitehead makes a variety of disjointed and concluso-ry allegations of copyright violations, judicial conflicts of interest, and a wide ranging conspiracy to retaliate against him for his claims. As the district court noted, Whitehead has raised similar claims in other courts, which have often been dismissed as frivolous and for which he has been sanctioned for his vexatious litigation. See, e.g., Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. 1:08-CV-792, 2009 WL 1565639 (E.D.Va. May 28, 2009). Whitehead’s claims in the instant proceeding represent another attempt to raise the same frivolous and vexatious claims in a new forum. Therefore, his IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are also DENIED.

As he has done in other courts, Whitehead has inundated this court with multiple motions and filings that are largely incomprehensible or fanciful. In this appeal alone he has filed more than twenty motions, which have consumed countless hours of court personnel time and resulted thus far in five court orders and eight clerk orders. In light of Whitehead’s history of extensive and vexatious litigation, we WARN him that the filing of any repetitive or frivolous pleading in .this court will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

** 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.