Thomas v. Moore
This text of Thomas v. Moore (Thomas v. Moore) 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.
Opinion
Case: 23-30279 Document: 00516903434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED September 21, 2023 No. 23-30279 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________
Ronny Lee Thomas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Tony R. Moore, Sheriff Officer Lieutenant; Steve Prator, Sheriff Department Chief,
Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:22-CV-6232 ______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ronny Lee Thomas appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We review the district court’s dismissal
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30279 Document: 00516903434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-30279
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. See Shakouri v. Davis, 923 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2019). An action may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious if it duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). The district court noted that Thomas’s complaint was duplicative of a federal action he had previously filed, which had been dismissed with prejudice. Thomas has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint on that basis. See Shakouri, 923 F.3d at 410; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas v. Moore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-moore-ca5-2023.