IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20082

Summary Calendar

ALI YAZDCHI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-568

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ali Yazdchi, former Texas prisoner # 1940831, moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s partial grant of 

summary judgment and jury verdict in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

Yazdchi argues that the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in 

favor of Wells Fargo based on the preclusive effect of a prior case between 

Yazdchi and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. was incorrect.

* 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

March 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20082 Document: 00515366155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2020
No. 19-20082

2

By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Yazdchi challenges the district 

court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court concluded that 

Yazdchi was collaterally estopped from asserting that the December 3, 2010 

power of attorney was fraudulent in light of the prior grant of summary 

judgment to Chase. Citing Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des 

Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n.9 (1982), the district court noted that 

it need not address Yazdchi’s argument that the Chase judgment was void 

because the court in that case had lacked jurisdiction, as that argument had 

been considered and rejected by the district court, this court, and the United 

States Supreme Court during the Chase litigation. Yazdchi now contends that 

the district court’s reliance on Insurance Corp. of Ireland was misplaced, as the 

case dealt with res judicata not, as here, with collateral estoppel.

Yazdchi is correct that there is no identity of parties in this case and that 

Insurance Corp. of Ireland specifically refers to res judicata rather than 

collateral estoppel. See 456 U.S. at 702 n.9 (“A party that has had an 

opportunity to litigate the question of subject-matter jurisdiction may not, 

however, reopen that question in a collateral attack upon an adverse judgment. 

It has long been the rule that principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional 

determinations—both subject matter and personal.”). However, nothing in 

Insurance Corp. of Ireland limits this statement to cases with identity of the 

parties; rather, the full quotation emphasizes the importance that the party in 

question has had the opportunity to litigate the jurisdictional issue. See id. 

Here, Yazdchi had the opportunity to litigate the jurisdictional issue regarding 

the judgment against Chase, doing so at length and unsuccessfully.

As he has not shown he can raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the 

denial of his motion, Yazdchi’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and 

 Case: 19-20082 Document: 00515366155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2020
No. 19-20082

3

his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-20082 Document: 00515366155 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2020