Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20178/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20178

Summary Calendar

SHIVAM P. PATEL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District court 

for the Southern District of Texas

U.S.D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00028

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

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. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20178 Document: 00513247590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2015
No. 15-20178

2

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, 135 S. Ct. 2804 (2015). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY 

Patel’s motions to strike and for remand.

 Case: 15-20178 Document: 00513247590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2015