Jesse Reece, Sr. v. Walden Affordable, L.L.C., et al

Filing

Jesse Reece, Sr. v. Walden Affordable, L.L.C., et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-11143

Document: 00511193225

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/03/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-11143 S u m m a r y Calendar August 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J E S S E F. REECE, SR., P la in t if f ­ A p p e lla n t v. W A L D E N AFFORDABLE, L.L.C.; FOUNTAINGATE APARTMENTS, D e fe n d a n t s ­ A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 7:09-CV-00164

B e fo r e BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J e s s e F. Reece, Sr., pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Walden Affordable L .L .C . and Fountaingate Apartments (collectively "Defendants") for, among o t h e r things, unlawful discrimination with regard to his eviction from F o u n t a in g a te Apartments. The district court found Reece's complaint frivolous a n d malicious, and dismissed it with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). On appeal, Reece argues that the district court erred by dismissing his case.

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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5T H CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-11143

Document: 00511193225

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/03/2010

No. 09-11143 W e have previously held that "in forma pauperis complaints may be d is m is s e d as frivolous if they seek to relitigate claims that allege substantially t h e same facts arising from a common series of events which have already been u n s u c c e s s fu lly litigated by the plaintiff." Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994 (5 t h Cir. 1993). The claims in Reece's current complaint allege facts that are v ir t u a lly identical to the facts in his previous complaint, which the district court d is m is s e d with prejudice. Reese [sic] v. Fountaingate Apartments, No. 7:08-CV1 5 5 , 2008 WL 5061642, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008). Both cases allege an im p r o p e r eviction in May 2007, a broken oral agreement not to evict, and an im p r o p e r use of Reece's rent money to pay Defendants' court costs. Because we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Reece's c la im s as frivolous, we AFFIRM.

2