IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10042

Summary Calendar

RHONDA FLEMING,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LESLIE POWERS; THE GEO GROUP,

INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; CHRISTOPHER

C. STRICKLAND; MAJOR DURHAM; CYNDEE OATES, D.U.S.M.S; DR. 

CABELLERO; MYRA WOMACK; PHARMACY TECH BROWN; KEEFE

COMMISSARY NETWORK SALES; COMMISSARY MANAGER VILLAREAL;

ARAMARK CORPORATION; CYNTHIA MOSLEY; JENNIFER CALDWELL;

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; R. CHRISTOPHER

GOLDSMITH; $1,846,668.98,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-452

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rhonda Fleming, federal prisoner # 20446-009, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of her pro se and in forma pauperis complaint. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 7, 2013

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: 13-10042 Document: 00512334479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-10042

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Fleming was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire

fraud. She was also convicted of money laundering. She is currently serving a

360-month sentence based on these convictions.

Fleming filed a pro se complaint in a state district court, alleging various

claims related to the conditions of the facility where she was housed as a pretrial detainee.1 She also sought relief from a civil forfeiture judgment obtained

against her property during the underlying criminal action. Fleming asked to

proceed in forma pauperis.

The government removed the case to federal district court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1442. The government then filed a motion to dismiss based

on the three-strikes rule found in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2 Fleming responded to the

motion, arguing that the provision did not apply to her because she did not

“bring” her lawsuit in federal court; instead, the government removed the action

to federal court. In its reply, the government argued that dismissal was

nonetheless appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Fleming’s claims were

time-barred. The district court agreed and dismissed Fleming’s claims under

Section 1915A. The court explained that all of the claims in Fleming’s complaint

were alleged to have occurred between 2007 and 2009. Fleming’s complaint was

1 Specifically, Fleming alleged constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and civil rights claims

under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. She also sought relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)

and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that

it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

2

 Case: 13-10042 Document: 00512334479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-10042

not filed until 2012, which was beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The

district court also concluded thatSection 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision did not

apply because the government had removed the case to federal court.

Fleming filed a motion to reconsider. In its order addressing the motion,

the district court stated that upon further consideration, it was uncertain

whether Section 1915(g) barred Fleming’s complaint. Accordingly, the court

ordered additional briefing on the issue. In its supplemental brief, the

government argued that Section 1915(g) should bar Fleming from proceeding in

forma pauperis given that she was an inmate who had three or more cases or

appeals dismissed as frivolous and was attempting to file a new case against

federal agencies and employees without paying a filing fee.

The district court entered a second order that continued to hold that

dismissal under Section 1915A was appropriate, but it held that an additional

reason for dismissal was that Fleming’s claims were barred by the three-strikes

provision in Section 1915(g). In response, Fleming filed a letter with the district

court, advising that she was prepared to pay the filing fee and asking the court

to order the fee deducted from her prison trust account and forwarded to the

district clerk. The district court construed the letter as a motion to alter or

amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The court denied the motion, explaining that because Fleming had

initially sought to circumvent the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g) and

avoid paying the filing fee by filing her complaint in state court, her desire now

to pay the fee was not a basis for relief under Rule 59(e).

DISCUSSION

We review dismissals under Section 1915A de novo. Velasquez v. Woods,

329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Fleming is a prisoner seeking redress

from government entities and government employees, her complaint is subject

to preliminary screening by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As part of

3

 Case: 13-10042 Document: 00512334479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-10042

this review, the district court is authorized to dismiss a complaint if the action

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Here, the district court’s initial order

dismissed Fleming’s complaint because the claims raised were barred by the

applicable statute of limitations and were frivolous. In its second order of

dismissal, the court added the three-strikes provision as an alternative basis for

dismissal.

Fleming’s claims related to the conditions of her confinement as a pre-trial

detainee and referred to events that occurred between 2007 and 2009. All of the

claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations.3 Fleming did not file her

complaint until 2012. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing

her complaint for failure to state a claim given that all of Fleming’s claims were

barred by the statute of limitations. We need not reach the district court’s

alternative basis for dismissal that Fleming’s claims about the conditions of her

confinement were also barred by Section 1915(g)’s three-strikes rule.

Fleming also challenged the propriety of an earlier civil forfeiture order. 

Fleming claims that her due process rights were violated because she did not

receive the requisite notice before her property was forfeited. The district court

did not address this issue in its initial order of dismissal. The court later asked

for supplemental briefing on the issue in response to Fleming’s motion for

reconsideration. The government argued in its brief that Fleming had already

raised this claim in prior litigated actions and, therefore, it was barred by res

judicata. In its subsequent order of dismissal, the district court did not address

res judicata. Instead, the court concluded that the civil forfeiture claim was

barred by the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g).

3 See Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 590 (5th Cir. 1999) (Bivens); Price v.

City of San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2005) (Section 1983); 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)

(FTCA); Holmes v. Tex. A&M Univ., 145 F.3d 681, 684 (5th Cir. 1998) (ADA).

4

 Case: 13-10042 Document: 00512334479 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-10042

“Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes

the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been

raised in that action.” Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th

Cir. 2009). Res judicata applies where these four elements are met: “(1) the

parties must be identical in the two actions; (2) the prior judgment must have

been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there must be a final

judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action must be

involved in both cases.” Id. Based on our review of the record, Fleming’s

challenges to the forfeiture were fully litigated in the United States District

Court of the Southern District of Texas and this court.4 Therefore, her claims

related to the civil forfeiture order are barred by res judicata. Although the

district court did not rely on res judicata as a basis for dismissal, this court may

affirm the district court on any grounds supported by the record. Brewster v.

Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 769 n.3 (5th Cir. 2009). Because res judicata provides a

sufficient basis for dismissal, we need not address whether Fleming’s claim is

also barred by the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g).

Fleming has also filed a motion to remand the case to the district court. 

As stated, Fleming attempted to pay the filing fee after the district court entered

its second order dismissing her case under Section 1915(g). The district court

refused to accept the fee. Section 1915A, though, “applies regardless of whether

the plaintiff has paid a filing fee or is proceeding in forma pauperis.” Ruiz v.

United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Fleming fails to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted, her complaint was properly

dismissed under Section 1915A and her attempt now to pay the filing fee is of no

effect. Fleming’s motion to remand is denied AFFIRMED.

4 Fleming filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture in 2009. The United States District

Court in the Southern District of Texas denied the motion, and this court affirmed. United

States v. $670,706.55, 367 F. App’x 532 (5th Cir. 2010).

5

 Case: 13-10042 Document: 00512334479 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/07/2013