Ratcliff v. State of Tex.
| Decision Date | 19 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2172,83-2172 |
| Parties | Elijah W. RATCLIFF, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Elijah W. Ratcliff, pro se.
Theresa Ann Kraatz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before RUBIN, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Elijah Ratcliff is a disbarred Texas attorney. The other two plaintiffs are apparently business entities affiliated with Ratcliff. The present action was brought to recover money damages, to expunge the record relating to Ratcliff's criminal conviction and subsequent disbarment, and to reinstate his license to practice law. The businesses were alleged to have suffered derivatively as a result of Ratcliff's criminal conviction and disbarment.
Ratcliff has presented his complaints and arguments for judicial review on other occasions. See Ratcliff v. State, 504 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.) reh. denied (February 20, 1974); Ratcliff, et al. v. State of Texas, No. H-81-1245 (S.D.Tex., filed August 12, 1981), aff'd, 673 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir., 1982), reh. denied (April 26, 1983).
In the present action, both the State of Texas and the State Bar of Texas filed motions to dismiss on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. The district court granted the motions to dismiss. It decided that the doctrine of res judicata precluded Ratcliff's action insofar as it sought to recover monetary damages. With respect to expunging the criminal and disbarment records and reinstating Ratcliff's license to practice law, the district court decided that these arguments were a collateral attack on Ratcliff's conviction and could be pursued only in an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Attorneys' fees were awarded to the defendants.
The district court entered final judgment in this action on September 30, 1982. On November 12, 1982, Ratcliff filed a motion for a new trial. On December 20, 1982, the district court denied the motion. On January 3, 1983, Ratcliff filed a motion styled a "Rule 60 Motion for Rehearing." In this motion, Ratcliff stated that his objective in presenting the motion was to obtain "review and rectification" of prior state judgments tainted by fraud. The district court denied this motion on March 9, 1983. On March 18, 1983, Ratcliff filed his Notice of Appeal of the Order which denied his Rule 60 Motion for Rehearing.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss Ratcliff's appeal as being untimely filed. Conceding, as they must that the appeal was timely if Ratcliff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they argue that he did not file such a motion. Instead, the appellees contend that Ratcliff's motion was obviously a request that the district court reconsider its order of December 20, 1982, on substantive grounds.
The appellees also point out that nowhere in Ratcliff's motion is there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc.
...tactic, with little concern for the resolution of the conflict. Sanctions are most appropriate; in fact, compelled. Ratcliff v. Texas, 714 F.2d 24, 25 (5th Cir.1983) (sanctions warranted when prosecution of appeal was for the purpose of harassment or out of sheer obstinacy). Accordingly, we......
-
Spiegel v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...sanctions sua sponte in light of the appellant's entire course of conduct over the years and his litigious proclivities); Ratcliff v. Texas, 714 F.2d 24 (5th Cir.1983) (Rule 38 sanctions were imposed where the appeal was prosecuted for the purpose of harassment or out of sheer obstinacy); D......
-
Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...at 1128 (citation omitted). See also Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir.1973) (successive Rule 59 motions); Ratcliff v. State of Texas, 714 F.2d 24 (5th Cir.1983) (Rule 60(b) motion to attack denial of earlier post-trial motion). See also Eleby v. American Medical Systems, 795 F.2d ......
-
Eleby v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
...motion, as that motion was merely a repetition of the first and did not independently seek Rule 60(b) relief. See Ratcliff v. State of Texas, 714 F.2d 24 (5th Cir.1983); Burnside; Ellis. Hence, if we apply the same standard of review to the denial of the December 17 motion that we would if ......