IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30042

Summary Calendar

MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN ABDALLAH OMRAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ROBERT WYCHE; STEVE PRATOR; ARDISE HICKS; CHAPLAIN 

WHITTIKER; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; 

JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6; JOHN DOE #7; JOHN DOE #8; JOHN DOE 

#9; JOHN DOE #10; JOHN DOE #11; JOHN DOE #12,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:17-CV-64

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran, immigration detainee 

# A079680001, former federal prisoner # 12752-049, and former Louisiana 

prisoner # 121227, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against Steve Prator, the Caddo Parish Sheriff; Robert Wyche, the commander 

 

* 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

December 13, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30042 Document: 00514760353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2018
No. 18-30042

2

of the Caddo Correctional Center (CCC); Ardise Hicks, the food services 

manager at the CCC; Chaplain Whittiker, the religious services coordinator at 

the CCC; and John Does #1-12 (hereinafter the John Doe defendants). Omran, 

who is a practicing Muslim, alleged that he was denied halal foods during his 

time as a pretrial detainee at the CCC in violation of his right to equal 

protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and various state laws.

Because Omran was proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), his complaint 

was subject to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The district 

court dismissed Omran’s complaint sua sponte as barred by res judicata and 

for failure to state a claim against the John Doe defendants. The court also 

sanctioned Omran based on his “numerous, meritless complaints” and required

that he obtain judicial pre-approval of all future filings and that he be 

prohibited from proceeding IFP absent a certification of good faith.

Omran argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his 

§ 1983 action as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a non-frivolous 

claim against the John Doe defendants. He also challenges the district court’s 

imposition of sanctions.

“The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that this 

court reviews de novo.” Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 

571 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s dismissal of Omran’s claims against 

the John Doe defendants under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim is 

reviewed de novo, applying the same standard used to review a dismissal 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 

F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002).

Res judicata applies when the following four conditions are satisfied: 

“(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action 

was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was 

 Case: 18-30042 Document: 00514760353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2018
No. 18-30042

3

concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause 

of action was involved in both actions.” Singh, 428 F.3d at 571.

As the district court observed, Omran had already filed a § 1983 action 

against Prator, Wyche, Hicks, and Whittiker complaining about the denial of 

halal foods while he was confined at the CCC. His initial § 1983 action claimed 

that the failure to accommodate his religious dietary requests violated his right 

to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. That claim was 

dismissed on summary judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the 

dismissal was affirmed on appeal, making it final for purposes of res judicata. 

See Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir. 2013).

“Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars the litigation of claims that either 

have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier suit.” Singh, 428 

F.3d at 571. “In order to determine whether both suits involve the same cause 

of action, this Court uses the transactional test.” Id. “The critical issue is 

whether two actions are based on the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id.

(quotation omitted). 

Omran’s instant complaint reiterates allegations about his prison diet, 

but instead of claiming a violation of the First Amendment, he asserts new 

legal theories under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law. Although he 

now advances an equal protection claim and various state law claims based on 

an allegedly unconstitutional policy, the transaction at issue in both the 

instant lawsuit and Omran’s initial § 1983 action is the denial of his request 

for a halal diet while detained at the CCC. Singh, 428 F.3d at 571. 

The parties are also identical except for the addition of the John Doe 

defendants, who are said to be members of the Caddo Parish Board of 

Commissioners. The district court correctly dismissed Omran’s claims against 

 Case: 18-30042 Document: 00514760353 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2018
No. 18-30042

4

the new defendants because his complaint did not state sufficient facts to 

support parish liability for his alleged injuries.

Because Omran’s claims, regardless of the selected legal theory, emanate 

from the same nucleus of operative facts, and all the other elements for res 

judicata are met, the district court did not err in dismissing Omran’s 

complaint. 

Omran also complains about the district court’s imposition of sanctions,

claiming that, as an immigration detainee, he is not subject to the three-strikes 

rule of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Though the district court 

discussed the PLRA and the three-strikes rule in §1915(g), it did not impose 

sanctions based on the PLRA. Instead, the court imposed sanctions under its 

inherent power based on Omran’s numerous frivolous lawsuits and his abuse 

of his IFP status. See Goldgar v. Office of Admin., Exec. Office of the President, 

26 F.3d 32, 36 n.3 (5th Cir. 1994). Omran failed to show that the court erred 

in imposing sanctions in this case.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-30042 Document: 00514760353 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/13/2018