Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31074/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burnadine Anderson
Appellee
Timothy Dewayne Antwine
Appellee
Domonique Benn
Appellee
Cedric B. Glover
Appellee
K S L A, L.L.C.
Appellee
Joseph David Kent
Appellee
Raycom Media, Incorporated
Appellee
Edgar L. Rogers
Appellant
Jayne Ruben
Appellee
James Smith
Appellee
Ollie S. Tyler
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31074

Summary Calendar

EDGAR L. ROGERS, doing business as Human Utilities Whole Armour,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RAYCOM MEDIA, INCORPORATED; JAMES SMITH; JAYNE RUBEN; 

DOMONIQUE BENN; K S L A, L.L.C.; JOSEPH DAVID KENT, also known 

as Joey Kent; TIMOTHY DEWAYNE ANTWINE, also known as Tim 

DeWayne, also known as Tim Antwine; CEDRIC B. GLOVER, Individually; 

BURNADINE ANDERSON, Individually and as Executive Assistant to the 

Mayor of the City of Shreveport; OLLIE S. TYLER, Mayor-Elect of the City of 

Shreveport in her official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:14-CV-425

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar L. Rogers appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 

pro se civil suit alleging that the defendants conspired to violate his federal 

 

* 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

January 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31074 Document: 00513337707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2016
No. 14-31074

2

and state rights in numerous ways. We review the dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Thompson v. City of Waco, Texas, 764 

F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[R]egardless of whether the 

plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, conclusory 

allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not 

suffice.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Rogers’s claim that the defendants conspired to violate his copyright 

contains only conclusory allegations that the defendants copied protected 

material. See id.; General Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141-42 (5th 

Cir. 2004). Indeed, the allegations of conspiracy, upon which all of his claims 

are based, are entirely conclusory. See Taylor, 296 F.3d at 378. The district 

court, therefore, did not err by dismissing Rogers’s suit. Nor did the district 

court err by denying Rogers the opportunity to amend his complaint, since his 

pleadings below and in this court show that Rogers had already pleaded his 

“best case.” Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1998) (per 

curiam) (citing Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1986)).

However, the district court abused its discretion by imposing, without 

prior warning and on the basis of one prior frivolous suit, a sanction requiring 

Rogers to obtain prior approval and authorization from the Chief Judge of the 

Western District of Louisiana before filing any new civil action. See Mendoza 

v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 196-97 (5th Cir. 1993). We therefore vacate the 

imposition of this sanction and remand to the district court for the limited 

purpose of imposing a less stringent one. See id. at 197. 

 Case: 14-31074 Document: 00513337707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2016
No. 14-31074

3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and

VACATED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose 

stated above. Rogers’s motion for reconsideration of the prior order denying 

him leave to file a corrected brief is DENIED.

 Case: 14-31074 Document: 00513337707 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2016