Shivam Patel v. United Airlines

Fifth Circuit

Shivam Patel v. United Airlines

620 F. App'x 352

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2015

Docket15-20178

StatusUnpublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 620 F. App'x 352 (Shivam Patel v. United Airlines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shivam Patel v. United Airlines, 620 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Shivam P. Patel, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against United Airlines alleging that United retaliated against him for filing a discrimination claim by enforcing a rule requiring a six-month wait before reapplying for a lateral position. The district court, implicitly exercising its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed the case sua sponte following an oral hearing. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir.2002) (applying § 1915(e) to a non-prisoner); Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir.2013) (“we apply section 1915(e)’s ... standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation”). We have carefully considered the pertinent portions of the district court’s record and opinion in light of the parties’ briefs. We conclude that, even if we accept Patel’s version of the facts, the complaint was properly dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 489-90 (5th Cir.2014) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2804, - L.Ed.2d - (2015).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY Patel’s motions to strike and for remand.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Shivam P. Patel, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against United Airlines alleging that United retaliated against him for filing a discrimination claim by enforcing a rule requiring a six-month wait before reapplying for a lateral position. The district court, implicitly exercising its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed the case sua sponte following an oral hearing. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir.2002) (applying § 1915(e) to a non-prisoner); Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir.2013) (“we apply section 1915(e)’s ... standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation”). We have carefully considered the pertinent portions of the district court’s record and opinion in light of the parties’ briefs. We conclude that, even if we accept Patel’s version of the facts, the complaint was properly dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 489-90 (5th Cir.2014) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2804, - L.Ed.2d - (2015).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY Patel’s motions to strike and for remand.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 F. App'x 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shivam-patel-v-united-airlines-ca5-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack