PER CURIAM: Patricia Potts appeals the district court’s denial of her motions for permission to file suit and her motion for court appointed counsel. Potts is required to file this type of motion because she previously filed and litigated a frivolous suit against her mother and several government entities. Potts v. Crosby Indep. Sch. Dist. 210 Fed.Appx. 342 (5th Cir.2006) (unpublished). Since the dismissal of this lawsuit, Potts has filed numerous requests for permission to file suit, all of which have been dismissed as meritless.

On September 1, 2006, Potts was ordered to desist from filing any action, complaint, or motion in the district court, and warned that her failure to comply could result in sanctions or civil contempt. Potts nonetheless filed another motion for permission to file suit, which the district court denied on October 6, 2006. On appeal, Potts reiterates her grievances against the Defendants, but fails to identify any legal error in the district court’s enforcement of the filing ban. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 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R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . While that motion was pending, Potts mailed a second motion for leave to file suit. That motion was denied as moot on November 14, 2006. Potts's motion for court appointed counsel was denied on February 20, 2007. .

Potts has filed numerous motions in this court: (1) appellant’s motion to request to [sic] subpoena appellant’s case file records; (2) appellant's motion to authorize transcript at government expense; appellant's motion to supplement on appeal with appellant’s personal SSA Medical Disability File; (3) appellant’s motion to supplement the record with transcripts of February 24, 2003, February 25, 2003 hearings for temporary order, and transcripts of November 8, 2004 hearing; (4) appellant’s motion to subpoena personal legal files in the possession of appellant’s previous attorney; (5) appellant’s motion for writ of mandamus; (6) appellant’s motion for neuropsychological examination of appellant and Ally William; (7) appellant’s motion to supplement the record on appeal with transcript of March 25, 2003, and November, 2004; and (8) appellant's motion to appoint counsel.

These motions are hereby DENIED.