Balistreri-Amrhein v. American Technology, Inc.
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Appellant's Motions (#s 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 ) are DENIED. Appellant's Motions for Leave to File Expanded Page Limits (#s 33 , 35 ) are granted to the extent that Appellant may exceed any applicable page limit requirement. Should Appellant persist in filing further frivolous motions in this appeal, the court will consider all available sanctions. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 6/29/2022. (mcg)
Case 4:21-cv-00973-MAC Document 36 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2057
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DARLENE BALISTRERI-AMRHEIN,
Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellee.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-973
APPEAL OF ADVERSARY NO.
19-04077
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court are Appellant Darlene Balistreri-Amrhein’s (“Appellant”)
“Motion For Leave To File Motion For Reconsideration for Good Cause Reasons, Pecuniary
Interest, Legal Standing & Court Filed Expanded Page Limits” (#29), “Motion For
Reconsideration for Good Cause Reasons, Pecuniary Interest & Legal Standing, Motion For Leave
& Motion For Expanded Page Limits” (#30), “Motion For Reconsideration for Good Cause
Reasons, Pecuniary Interest & Legal Standing For Expanded Page Limits” (#31), “Motion For
Leave For Reconsideration of New U.S. Bankruptcy Code Violations, Fraud Upon Courts And
Obstruction of Justice Discovered” (#32), and “Motion For Reconsideration of New U.S.
Bankruptcy Code Violations, ‘Fraud Upon Courts And Obstruction of Justice’ Discovered” (#34).1
It is unclear the exact relief Appellant seeks in her motions. Nevertheless, it appears that
Appellant requests the court to reconsider its June 7, 2022, Memorandum Opinion (#27)
dismissing Appellant’s appeal for lack of standing. In the instant motions, Appellant does not
present any new bases for relief, assert any novel legal arguments, or raise any significant factual
1
Appellant’s Motions for Leave to File Expanded Page Limits (#s 33, 35) are granted to the extent
that Appellant may exceed any applicable page limit requirement.
Case 4:21-cv-00973-MAC Document 36 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2058
or legal challenges to the court’s opinion. Thus, the court declines to reconsider its June 7, 2022,
Memorandum Opinion (#27). Moreover, Appellant’s claims for court costs have not been raised
with the bankruptcy court, and, therefore, she should first present those claims in that forum.
Also before the court is Appellant’s “Motion for Automatic Disqualification Mandatory
Recusal & Sworn Affidavit of U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Crone Under 28 U.S.C. 455, et
seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 144, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 453, et seq.” (#28). In her motion, Appellant does
not present any viable basis for the undersigned’s recusal; nor is the court aware of any. Instead,
Appellant’s motion, like all of her other numerous filings, is filled with a “frivolous hodgepodge
of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish.” Crain v. Comm’r, 737
F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984); see Watson v. Tex. State Univ., 829 F. App’x 686, 686 (5th Cir.
2020); Kemp v. Shreveport Police Dep’t, No. 17-CV-0703, 2017 WL 3712104, at *2 (W.D. La.
July 25, 2017) (“[Plaintiff’s] history of incomprehensible filings strongly suggest[s] that [she] will
never be able to plead a non-frivolous complaint that complies with the court’s simple order.”),
adopted by No. CV 17-0703, 2017 WL 3711899 (W.D. La. Aug. 28, 2017); Smith v. Michael
Jedynak Substitute Tr. Morris & Assocs. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 3:14CV059-M-V, 2015 WL
13015997, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2015) (dismissing lawsuit where, “[i]n lieu of responsive
arguments, [the] plaintiff frequently offers th[e] court grandiose allegations of vague conspiracies
by [the] defendants.”). The court need not entertain such rubbish. Indeed, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recognizes that “pro se status is not a license to litter the
dockets of the federal courts with patently baseless suits.” Taylor v. Comm’r, 350 F. App’x 913,
915 (5th Cir. 2009); accord Margetis v. Furgeson, No. 4:12-CV-753, 2015 WL 6688063, at *10
(E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2015), aff’d, 666 F. App’x 328 (5th Cir. 2016).
2
Case 4:21-cv-00973-MAC Document 36 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2059
Consistent with the foregoing analysis, Appellant’s Motions (#s 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34) are
DENIED. Should Appellant persist in filing further frivolous motions in this appeal, the court
will consider all available sanctions. See FED. R. BANKR. P. 8020; Kenneth Michael Wright,
L.L.C. v. Kite Bros., L.L.C. (In re Kite), 710 F. App’x 628, 632 (5th Cir. 2018) (affirming
district court’s award of sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8020); Lewis v. Hill, No. 4:10CV242,
2011 WL 1299613, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2011) (“The standard used to determine whether
a bankruptcy appeal is frivolous under Bankruptcy Rule 8020 is the same standard applied to
determine whether an appeal is frivolous under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.”); see
also Sun Coast Res., Inc. v. Conrad, 958 F.3d 396, 398 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38 confers broad discretion on federal courts of appeals to award sanctions
in any appeal the court determines to be ‘frivolous.’” (citing FED. R. APP. P. 38)); Burch v.
America’s Servicing Co. (In re Burch), No. 20-11074, 2021 WL 5286563, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov.
12, 2021) (imposing sanctions for a frivolous appeal in a bankruptcy case).
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 29th day of June, 2022.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?