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.

 After a sale transaction for a saw mill between George Long and Wood-Mizer went 1

sour, WM filed suit in Indiana on the promissory note that was part of that transaction

against George Long and his company. George Long counterclaimed and also filed suit,

together with his wife, Rose Mary, in the Middle District of Louisiana in 2005, alleging defects

in the saw mill. The Indiana case went to judgment first, which was adverse to Long. The

federal district court in the 2005 suit then entered an adverse judgment against the Longs in

2007. The instant suit was filed in the Middle District of Louisiana in 2008.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30683

Summary Calendar

GEORGE A LONG, JR.; ROSE MARY LONG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

WOOD MIZER PRODUCTS INC, Its Owners, Employees, Insurers, and

Underwriters,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:08-CV-136

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is the third litigation between these parties. George A. Long, Jr.,

1

and Rose Mary Long (the Longs) filed the instant suit to seek redress for alleged

wrongs and improprieties that occurred in connection with their first suit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 7, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30683

2

against Wood Mizer Products, Inc. (WM), which was litigated in Indiana state

court. The district court dismissed their suit as barred by res judicata and as

being an improper attempt to litigate the propriety of state court procedural

rulings in federal court. The Longs move this court to supplement their

appellate brief. Their motion to supplement is GRANTED.

The Longs also move this court for authorization to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal

must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal presents nonfrivolous issues.

See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The Longs arguably

have shown that they are economically eligible to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. Du

Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

The Longs have not, however, shown that their appeal will raise

nonfrivolous claims. They argue that the instant suit should not have been

dismissed on res judicata grounds due to improprieties in the Indiana state court

proceedings, and they contend that their case is identical to Pumphrey v. K.W.

Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1995). The Longs also provide

argument concerning their claims that WM sold them a defective product and

committed fraud upon the court during the trial in Indiana.

These arguments do not suffice to show error in connection with the

district court’s judgment, nor do they establish that the Longs will present a

nonfrivolous appellate claim. To the extent that they seek to challenge the

judgment rendered by the Indiana state court, the district court did not err by

concluding that the instant suit was not the proper procedural vehicle for that

challenge. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).

The Middle District of Louisiana is not an appellate court with respect to an

Indiana state court. Insofar as the Longs argue that the doctrine of res judicata

does not apply because there were improprieties in the state court proceedings,

this argument lacks merit. See Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d

1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996). The Longs’ reliance on Pumphrey is unavailing
No. 08-30683

3

because that case is both nonbinding and materially distinguishable from their

case. They have already lost once before in federal district court in their 2005

lawsuit, and that ruling is res judicata in this case as well.

The Longs have not shown that they have nonfrivolous appellate claims.

Consequently, their IFP motion is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.