Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30826/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baton Rouge Police Department
Appellee
JP Morgan Chase Bank
Appellee
Brian Lewis
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30261 c/w Nos. 14-30320 & 14-30826

Summary Calendar

BRIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

U.S.D.C. No. 3:13-CV-744

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Brian Lewis filed a pro se suit against DefendantAppellant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (“Chase”) in 2012 and the action was 

dismissed by the district court in October 2013. This court denied Lewis’s 

appeal of the judgment in April 2014. See Lewis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., 559 F. App’x 404 (5th Cir. 2014). While his appeal in that case was 

pending before this court, Lewis filed a nearly identical suit against Chase and 

* 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

February 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-30826 Document: 00512935258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2015
No. 14-30261 c/w Nos. 14-30320 & 14-30826

a second Defendant-Appellant, the Baton Rouge Police Department, the 

following month in November 2013. In both suits, Lewis wholly failed to assert 

any comprehensible or legally cognizable claims. Since his initial suit, Lewis 

has advanced numerous frivolous filings in the district court and in this court. 

Additionally, eleven months ago, in denying his pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion to expedite petition, this court issued a warning 

directing Lewis to refrain from filing further frivolous filings in the district 

court and this court. 

In April 2014, the district court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss 

Lewis’s second suit (filed in November 2013) against Defendants-Appellants 

advancing the same frivolous, incomprehensible, conclusory allegations 

against them. In that judgment the district court also enjoined Lewis from 

filing any future litigation against Chase based on the same “facts” in this

action or in the initial suit filed against Chase in 2012. Lewis appeals that 

judgment herein. 

Because we again find Lewis’s appeal to be frivolous and entirely without 

merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 14-30826 Document: 00512935258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2015