United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50070

Summary Calendar

Suran Wije, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

United States of America, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CV-660

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Suran Wije moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the 

denial of his claims against the United States Department of Education 

(USDE) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court 

dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50070 Document: 00515990155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
No. 20-50070

2

The district court also denied leave to appeal IFP because the appeal is not in 

good faith. See McGarrah v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015)

(unpublished).

In his complaint, Wije contended that the USDE negligently failed to 

protect him from constitutional violations by the Texas Woman’s University 

(TWU). He argues that the USDE had a duty to act in his favor based on a 

mission statement on the USDE’s website, a broad policy statement in a form 

letter from the USDE’s Office of Civil Rights, and more generally under the 

Constitution. The district court properly dismissed his action because his 

claims are not based on any “law of the place”—in this case, Texas law—

under which “the United States, if a private person, would be liable.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1994); Coleman 

v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 835 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Further, the action is barred by the discretionary function exception 

of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) because Wije fails to allege any specific 

nondiscretionary duty imposed on the USDE. See United States v. Gaubert, 

499 U.S. 315, 322-23 (1991). We also note that the claims and issues in this 

action are indistinguishable from those rejected in a 2014 action against 

TWU and the USDE. See Wije v. Stuart, 694 F. App’x 234, 235-36 (5th Cir. 

2017). Wije is precluded from relitigating those clams and issues. See United 

States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1994) (addressing the 

doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion).

Wije has failed to identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See 

McGarrah, 783 F.3d at 584. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 

In addition to this frivolous appeal, Wije has filed two essentially 

identical and equally meritless civil actions. He is therefore WARNED that 

the filing of additional repetitive or frivolous actions or appeals will result in 

Case: 20-50070 Document: 00515990155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
No. 20-50070

3

sanctions, including monetary sanctions and limits on his access to this court 

and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

Case: 20-50070 Document: 00515990155 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2021