### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 f ilin g any suit related to his employment with the Department of Transportation without first obtaining leave of court “after demonstrating that his claim is t i m e l y, was
e xh a u sted (if applicable), and is not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppe l

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). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 31 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-50605 Document: 00512038353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2012No. 12-50605

In May 2012, Arizpe sought leave to file a civil complaint under a host of federal statutes, alleging employment discriminati o n by the Department of Tran s p ort atio n an d , rel at e dly , th e Fe der al Aviation Administration. Noting that th e p r oposed complaint asserted claims “again relating to [Arizpe’s] pas t 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 doctrin e a n d d enied Arizpe’s request for leave. Arizpe appeals that denial. We generally review denials o f l e av e 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 n o v o . 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 a n d c o llateral 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 8 2 5 ( 5th Cir. 2006) (holding that a federal court’s order dismissing a c a s e because a forum selection clause mandated venue in E n gland met the requirements for collateral estoppel). Moreover, a review of the record and
2 Case: 12-50605 Document: 00512038353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2012No. 12-50605

Arizpe’s previou s f

i l ings in the Western District of Texas demonstrates that Arizpe’s proposed claims against the Secretary of the D e p artment of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration arise out of the same nucleus of o p e r a t ive 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. Gillispi e , 2 0 3 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000); Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit , 383 F.3d 309 ( 5th Cir. 2004)) (The “critic al i s s u e” in a res judicata analysis “is whether the two actions are based on the ‘same nucleus of operative facts.’”). We agree with the district c ourt 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