Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0464-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesse F. REECE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. WALDEN AFFORDABLE, L.L.C.; Fountaingate Apartments, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-11143
    Summary Calendar.
    No. 09-11143
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 3, 2010.
    Jesse F. Reece, Sr., Wichita Falls, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesse F. Reece, Sr., pro se and informa pauperis, sued Walden Affordable L.L.C. and Fountaingate Apartments (collectively “Defendants”) for, among other things, unlawful discrimination with regard to his eviction from Fountaingate Apartments. The district court found Reece’s complaint frivolous and 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.

We have previously held that “in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed as frivolous if they seek to relitigate claims that allege substantially the same facts arising from a common series of events which have already been unsuccessfully litigated by the plaintiff.” Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994 (5th Cir.1993). The claims in Reece’s current complaint allege facts that are virtually identical to the facts in his previous complaint, which the district court dismissed with prejudice. Reese [sic] v. Fountaingate Apartments, No. 7:08-CV-155, 2008 WL 5061642, at *2 (N.D.Tex. Nov.25, 2008). Both cases allege an improper eviction in May 2007, a broken oral agreement not to evict, and an improper 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 claims as frivolous, we AFFIRM. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.