Willie Barfield v. Hunt Petroleum Corp., et al

Filing

Willie Barfield v. Hunt Petroleum Corp., et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-31004

Document: 00511177684

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/19/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31004 S u m m a r y Calendar July 19, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

W I L L I E BARFIELD, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. H U N T PETROLEUM CORP.; X.H.L.L.C., D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 5:08-CV-1411

B e fo r e BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W illie Barfield, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the d is t r ic t court's dismissal of his complaint against Hunt Petroleum Corporation a n d X.H.L.L.C. (collectively Hunt), seeking damages and the restoration of m in e r a l rights derived from certain property in which he asserts ownership t h r o u g h the succession of his mother, Annie Barfield. The district court

d i s m is s e d Barfield's complaint with prejudice for failure properly to join all of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31004

Document: 00511177684 Page: 2 No. 09-31004

Date Filed: 07/19/2010

h is co-heirs and other necessary parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P r o c e d u r e 19 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). B a r fie ld argues that the district court erred in dismissing his case at all a n d with prejudice. He contends that the district court erred in ordering him to jo in other persons because he is not a lawyer. He asserts that the district court w a s "in cahoots" with counsel for Hunt to disenfranchise him whose mother was m u r d e r e d by a conspirator aligned with the appellee to kill his mother and to s t e a l her property. He argues that a miscarriage of justice occurred when the d is t r ic t court judge conspired with the conspirators to bar him from court. A lt h o u g h this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se p a r tie s must still brief the issues and comply with the standards of Rule 28 of t h e Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5 t h Cir. 1995). The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require the parties to p r o v id e references to the page numbers of the record to support statements of fa c t . FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(7) and (9)(A); 5TH CIR. R. 28.2.2. Rule 28(a)(9)(A) also r e q u ir e s the argument to contain citations to the authorities on which the a p p e lla n t relies. Barfield's brief contains no record citations and no citation to r e le v a n t legal authority. Barfield states the correct issue but has not adequately b r ie fe d any argument, by reference to facts and legal authority, relating to the d is t r ic t court's reasons for dismissal. He merely argues that the district court s h o u ld not have ordered him to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure because h e is not a lawyer. Failure by the appellant to identify any error in the district c o u r t's analysis or application to the facts of the case is the same as if the a p p e lla n t had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy S h e r iff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). T h is court can, in its discretion, consider a noncompliant brief and allow p r o se plaintiffs to proceed when the noncompliance does not prejudice the o p p o s in g party. Grant, 59 F.3d at 525. However, Barfield's brief contains a b u s iv e , disparaging or contemptuous allegations that the district court was "in 2

Case: 09-31004

Document: 00511177684 Page: 3 No. 09-31004

Date Filed: 07/19/2010

c a h o o t s " with appellees in a conspiracy to bar him from court. Although a pro s e appellant's brief is entitled to a liberal construction, we "simply will not allow lib e r a l pleading rules and pro se practice to be a vehicle for abusive documents." Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303 (5th Cir.1978). Thus, we decline to

e x e r c is e our discretion to consider Barfield's inadequate brief, and we dismiss t h is appeal as frivolous pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Barfield is warned that the f i lin g of additional frivolous appeals and/or pleadings containing abusive, d is p a r a g in g and contemptuous language will result in the imposition of s a n c t io n s . Barfield's motion for summary judgment is denied. A P P E A L DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION W A R N I N G ISSUED.

3