IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11140

Summary Calendar

ROBERT WALTER BONNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DON ADAMS, Police Officer; ADAM KING, Police Officer; LARRY SPARKS,

Police Officer, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-4019

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Walter Bonner, Texas prisoner # 1561662, seeks to appeal the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Burleson Police Department

officers, Don Adams, Larry Sparks, and Adam King. In his complaint, he alleged

that the officers conducted an illegal search and seizure on May 8, 2007, and

improperly confiscated his property. The district court dismissed the complaint

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 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: 12-11140 Document: 00512262474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2013
No. 12-11140

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as malicious because it duplicates the

complaint in Bonner v. Bosworth, No. 3:10-CV-2150 (N.D. Tex. May 3, 2011). 

An action may be dismissed as malicious if it duplicates claims raised by

the same plaintiff in previous litigation. Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95

(5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989). The fact

that Bonner was not proceeding in forma pauperis in the district court did not

preclude the district court from dismissing his complaint as duplicative. See

Pittman, 980 F.2d at 995. Bonner has not shown that the district court erred in

dismissing his complaint as duplicative because both the instant complaint and

Bonner’s prior complaint involved “the same series of events” and contained

allegations of “many of the same facts.” See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,

1021 (5th Cir. 1988). 

To the extent that Bonner argues that his complaint should not be

considered duplicative and that he should be allowed to proceed given that he

has shown that his state remedies were inadequate and that the “jurisdictional

bar” relied upon by the district court in dismissing his claims in Bonner,

No. 3:10-CV-2150, has been “resolved,” this argument is without merit. Even if

it is assumed that the inadequacy of state court remedies can serve as a gateway

for refiling a previously unsuccessful federal action seeking redress for the

intentional deprivation of property by a state actor, Bonner has failed to show

that his state remedies were in fact inadequate. See Holloway v. Walker, 784

F.2d 1287, 1293 (5th Cir. 1986). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

The district court’s dismissal of Bonner’s § 1983 complaint counts as a

strike under § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-

88 (5th Cir. 1996). Bonner has two other strikes. See Bonner, No. 3:10-CV-2150;

Bonner v. Bosworth, No. 11-10560 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011). Because Bonner has

accumulated at least three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any

civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

2

 Case: 12-11140 Document: 00512262474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2013
No. 12-11140

physical injury. See § 1915(g). He is also warned that any future frivolous or

repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will

subject him to additional sanctions. Bonner should review all pending matters

to ensure that they are not frivolous or repetitive and move to dismiss any that

are frivolous or repetitive.

AFFIRMED; § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

3

 Case: 12-11140 Document: 00512262474 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2013