IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50605

Summary Calendar

In re Richard Arizpe,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-cv-449

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Richard Arizpe (“Arizpe”) has filed numerous lawsuits related

to his employment with the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation

Administration. In a prior case, a district court in the Western District of Texas 

dismissed Arizpe’s claims with prejudice and enjoined Arizpe from filing any suit

related to his employment with the Department of Transportation without first

obtaining leave of court “after demonstrating that his claim is timely, was

exhausted (if applicable), and is not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel

or other legal doctrine.” Arizpe v. Cino, No. SA-06-CA-563-FB (W.D. Tex. Apr.

20, 2007). We affirmed. Arizpe v. Peters, No. 07-50819, 2007 WL 4510900, at *1

(5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 31, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 12-50605 Document: 00512038353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2012
No. 12-50605

In May 2012, Arizpe sought leave to file a civil complaint under a host of

federal statutes, alleging employment discrimination by the Department of

Transportation and, relatedly,theFederal Aviation Administration. Noting that

the proposed complaint asserted claims “again relating to [Arizpe’s] past

employment by the Department of Transportation,” the district court concluded

that Arizpe failed to show that his claims were not barred by res judicata,

collateral estoppel, or another legal doctrine and denied Arizpe’s request for

leave. Arizpe appeals that denial. 

We generally review denials of leave under an abuse of discretion

standard. See In re Raz, No. 07-30558, 2007 WL 3145320, at *1 (5th Cir. 2007)

(reviewing a district court’s refusal to grant a “prolific filer” leave to file a new

complaint for abuse of discretion). However, the application of res judicata and

collateral estoppel are conclusions of law that we review de novo. Davis v.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The res judicata

effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that we review de novo.”); Stripling

v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 2000) (“The application of

collateral estoppel is a question of law that we review de novo”). 

As he did before the district court, Arizpe argues on appeal that res

judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply because a jury never heard his

cases. But a jury trial is not a prerequisite to the application of claim and issue

preclusion principles. See, e.g., Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 372 (5th

Cir. 2010) (holding that an agreed decision in Tax Court had preclusive effect);

Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Servs v. QCI Marine Offshore, Inc., 448 F.3d

825 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that a federal court’s order dismissing a case

because a forum selection clause mandated venue in England met the

requirements for collateral estoppel). Moreover, a review of the record and

2

Case: 12-50605 Document: 00512038353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2012
No. 12-50605

Arizpe’s previous filings in the Western District of Texas demonstrates that

Arizpe’s proposed claims against the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration arise out of the same

nucleus of operative facts that were at issue in his prior lawsuits. See Test

Masters Ed. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing New York

Life Insur. Co. v. Gillispie, 203 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000); Davis v. Dallas

Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004)) (The “critical issue” in a res

judicata analysis “is whether the two actions are based on the ‘same nucleus of

operative facts.’”). We agree with the district court that Arizpe has failed to

make the required showing that his claims are not barred by collateral estoppel,

res judicata, or another legal doctrine. Therefore, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Arizpe leave to file his complaint. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 12-50605 Document: 00512038353 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2012