Filed: Aug. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11115 Conference Calendar ERIC GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JIM NICHOLSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-938 - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CUR
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11115 Conference Calendar ERIC GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JIM NICHOLSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-938 - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURI..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11115
Conference Calendar
ERIC GANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIM NICHOLSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-938
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eric Gant appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction of his complaint against the
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Gant
argues that the court had jurisdiction over his claims that the
VA terminated his benefits without notice and in retaliation for
earlier litigation. We conclude that the district court properly
dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. See Zuspann v.
Brown,
60 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (5th Cir. 1995); 38 U.S.C. § 511.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-11115
-2-
Gant’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The
appeal is therefore dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
We have previously imposed sanctions on Gant for filing
frivolous appeals, and we have reiterated our sanction warning in
other cases. Gant v. Principi, No. 05-10036 (5th Cir. May 8,
2006)(unpublished); Gant v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 04-10915
(5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2005)(unpublished). Because Gant continues to
file frivolous appeals, IT IS ORDERED that he now pay sanctions
in the amount of $250, payable to the clerk of this court. The
clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts
within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any civil
complaint or appeal by Gant unless Gant submits proof of
satisfaction of this sanction. If Gant attempts to file any
further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court
without such proof the clerk will docket them for administrative
purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof
that the sanction has been paid will neither be addressed nor
acknowledged.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.