Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40750/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40750-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edwin Atchison
Appellee
L. Dotles
Appellee
M. Fellnis
Appellee
John A. Rupert
Appellee
John Patrick Wallace
Appellant
John Wisener
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40750

JOHN PATRICK WALLACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN A. RUPERT; JOHN WISENER; L. DOTLES; EDWIN ATCHISON; M. 

FELLNIS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:15-CV-53

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Patrick Wallace moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) 

and for appointment of counsel. Wallace filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against 

personnel of the Coffield Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

He alleged their failure to protect him from harassment by other inmates. The 

district court dismissed the action as frivolous because it sought to relitigate 

claims that had been dismissed in 2012 and because it would be untimely in 

 

* 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

March 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40750 Document: 00513436862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 15-40750

2

any event. The court also denied Wallace’s IFP motion and certified that his 

appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving to appeal IFP, Wallace challenges the certification that his 

appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 

F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We may dismiss the appeal if “it is apparent that an appeal would be 

meritless.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

In support of his motion, Wallace asserts that he “re-generated” his prior 

claims because the 2012 decision “failed to resolve genuine issues of material 

facts,” and because his meritorious claims were wrongly dismissed without an 

opportunity to litigate them fully. An IFP complaint may be dismissed as 

frivolous if it seeks to relitigate claims that have already been litigated 

unsuccessfully. Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989). A 

showing of new and significant facts or an intervening change in the law might 

permit relitigation of claims. See id. at 851. But Wallace makes no effort to 

make this showing.

Wallace fails to identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 

707 F.2d at 220. The IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED 

AS FRIVOLOUS. See id.; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

Wallace’s motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED.

 Case: 15-40750 Document: 00513436862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016