Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is notprecedent exceptunder thelimited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Afte r a sale tran sactio n for a saw mill betwee n George Lon g and Wood-Mi zerwent

1 sour, WM filed suit in Ind ia na on the promissorynote that was part of th at tran sactio n again st George Lon g and his company. George Long counterclai med and also file d suit, togethe r withhis wife , Rose Mary, in the Middle District of Loui sian a in 200 5, alle gingdefe cts in the saw mill. Th e In dian a case went to ju dgment first, whichwas a dve rse toLong . The federal di strict court in the 200 5 suit thenentered an adverse ju dgment a gainst the Lon gs in 200 7. Th e instant suit was file d inth e Mi ddle District of Loui sian a in 200 8. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30683 Su m m ar y Cal endar GE OR GE AL ONG, J R. ; R OS E M AR YL ONG , P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n ts
v. W O O D M I ZER PRO D U CT S I N C, I t s O w ne r s , Em pl o ye e s , I ns ur e r s , a nd U n derw ri t ers , D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V

- 136
B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h is is the third l i ti ga ti on be tw ee n the se p a rti es. G eo rg e A
. L on g, J r ., 1
an d R ose M ary L on g ( t h e L on gs) f i l ed the i n st an tsu i tto seek redress f or al l eged w r o n g s a n d im p r o p r i e t ie s th a t o c c u r r e d in co n n e c tio n w ith th e irfir s t s u it United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30683

2 a ga i n st W oo d M i ze r P r od u cts, In c. (W M ), w h i ch w a s l i ti ga ted i n In d i a n a state c our t . The d i s t r i c t c o ur t d i s m i s s e d t he i r s ui t a s b a r r e d b y r e s j ud i c a t a and as bei ng an im p roper at t em pt t o l i t i gat e t he pr opr i et y o f s t at e c our tpr oc edur al r u lin g s in fe d e r a l co u r t. T h e L o n g s m o v e th is co u r t t o s u p p le m e n t t h e ir a p p e l l a t e b r i e f
. T h e i rmo t i o n t o s u p p l e me n ti s GR ANT ED
. T h e L o n g s a l s o mo v e t h i s c o u r tf o ra u t h o r i z a t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r ma pauper i s ( I FP ) on appe al
. A m ovants ee ki ng l eave t o pr oc ee d I FP on appe al m u stshow t h at he i s a pa u per an d t h at t h e ap pea lpresents n on f ri vol ou s i ssues. S ee C arson v. Pol l ey , 6 8 9 F .2 d 5 6 2 , 5 8 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 )
. T h e L o n g s a r g u a b ly h a v e s h o w n th a t t h e y a r e e c o n o m ic a lly e lig ib le to p r o c e e d IF P
. A d k i n s v . E
. I
. Du Pon tde Nem ou rs & Co. , 3 3 5 U .S
. 3 3 1 , 3 3 9 (19 4 8 ). T h e L on gs ha ve n ot, h ow ever, show n t h at t h ei r app ealw i l lrai se n on f ri vol ou s c l ai m s. Th ey argu e t h at th e in sta n tsui tshou l d n otha ve been di sm i ssed on res j u di cat a grou n ds du e t o im propri et i es i n t h e I n di an a st ate c ou rt proceedi n gs, an d they contend t h at t h ei r c ase i s i den t i calt o P u mp h r ey v . K
. W. T h ompson T

oolCo. , 6 2 F. 3d 1 12 8 ( 9t h Ci r . 1 99 5)
. The Lo ngs a l s o pr o vi de ar gum e ntc o nc e r ni ng t he i rc l ai m s t hatW M s o l d the m a de fe c t i ve pr o duc ta nd c om m i t t ed f

r aud upon t he c our tduri ng t he t r i ali n I ndi ana. Thes e a r gum e nt s do no ts uf f i c e t o s ho w e r r o ri n c o nne c t i o n wi t h t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t, n or d o th ey esta b l i sh tha t t h e L on gs w i l lpr ese n t a no nf r i vo l o us a ppe l l at e c l ai m . To t he e xt e ntt hatt he y s e e k t o c hal l e nge t he j udgm entr ender ed by t he I ndi ana st at e c our t , t he di st r i c tc our tdi d noter rby c onc l udi ng t hat the i nst ant s ui tw as nott he pr ope rpr oc edur alve hi c l e f ort hat c h a lle n g e . Se e Li e d t ke v. S t at e Barof Te x as , 1 8 F .3d 3 1 5 , 3 1 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). Th e M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana i s notan appel l at e c our tw i t h re spe c tt o a n In d i a n a state cou rt. In sofar a s th e L on gs arg u e th a t t h e d octrine of res jud i ca ta does n otapp l y becau se t h ere w ere i m propri et i es i n t h e st ate c ou rtproceedi n gs, th is a r g u m e n t la c k s m e r it. S ee Jo n e s v . Sh e e h a n , Yo u ng& Cu l p , P
. C. , 82 F. 3d 13 34 , 1 33 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6)
. The Long s ’r e l i anc e o n P u mph rey i s un ava i l i ngN o. 08- 30683

3 b e c a u s e th a t ca s e is b o th n o n b in d in ga n d m a te r ia lly d is tin g u is h a b le fr o m th e ir c a s e . The y ha v e a l r e a d y l o s t o nc e b e f o r e i n fe d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o ur t i n t he i r 2005 la w s u it, a n d th a t r u lin gis re s ju d ic a ta in th is ca s e a s w e ll. T h e L on gs h ave not show n t h at t h ey h ave n on f rivol ou s app el l ate c l ai m s. C ons equent l y, t hei rIFP m ot i on i s D E N I E D , an d thi s appeali s D I SM I SS E D as fr iv o lo u s . S ee 5 TH C IR . R
. 42. 2.