Schmidt v. Van Buren, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11279
Summary Calendar
LILLY SCHMIDT, also known as Lily Schmidt,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN GINNY VAN BUREN, Carswell Federal Medical Center; GREG
ABBOTT, Attorney General,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CV-1829
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lilly Schmidt, federal prisoner # 31487-054, appeals the
denial of her motion for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition for failure to comply with a prior sanction and
preclusion order. In her purported § 2241 petition, she sought
to challenge her conviction for a plan to murder two federal
agents, solicitation to commit that crime, and attempted escape
from custody, for which she received a sentence of 30 years. The
district court’s dismissal of a suit for failure to comply with

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-11279
-2-
an earlier sanction order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990).
Schmidt does not dispute that she was sanctioned by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
or the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Nor does she contend that she has paid the $250
monetary sanction imposed by the Northern District of Texas.
Although Schmidt complains that the sanctions previously
imposed are an abuse of discretion, these prior sanction orders
are not subject to review in this appeal. Moreover, Schmidt’s
contention that the enforcement of such sanction and preclusion
orders blocks her access to the court is without merit. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355-56 (1996). Because the
district court in the instant case could properly enforce the
outstanding sanction orders of sister courts, its denial of
Schmidt’s motion for leave for failure to comply with the
sanction order was not an abuse of discretion. See Balawajder v.
Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067-68 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
The record on appeal reflects that Schmidt has sent to this
court documents containing abusive language and unfounded and
inflammatory allegations against officers of this court. In
light of Schmidt’s egregious and persistent filing of frivolous
and abusive pleadings/documents in this court as well as in other
courts, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject the filing of

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-11279
-3-
any motion and/or pleading by Schmidt, except for complaints that
Schmidt is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,
until the outstanding $250 monetary sanction imposed by the
Northern District of Texas is paid. We also warn Schmidt that
the continued filing of pleadings or documents in this court that
are frivolous or contain abusive language or unfounded,
inflammatory allegations against officers of this court will
result in the imposition of additional sanctions.
AFFIRMED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --