Case Name: In re: Yoram RAZ, Movant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-25
Citations: 252 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 07-30558
Parties: In re: Yoram RAZ, Movant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 609–611

Head Matter:
In re: Yoram RAZ, Movant-Appellant.
No. 07-30558
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2007.
Yoram Raz, pro se.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yoram Raz, a prolific filer of pro se lawsuits, was previously barred from filing another complaint in the Western District of Louisiana without first obtaining written permission of the court. On March 13, 2007, Raz sought permission to file a complaint against Bossier Deputy Reigan Malmay, Three Unknown Bossier Deputies, and the United States of America for alleged constitutional violations arising out of a traffic stop and arrest in Benton, Louisiana. Finding that Raz's complaint was frivolous, the district court denied Raz leave to file his complaint. Raz now appeals.
Having reviewed the pleadings and Raz's previous filings in the Western District of Louisiana, we conclude that Raz's current complaint contains the same type of incredible claims and allegations that led to the dismissal of Raz's previous actions. See, e.g., Raz v. United States, No. 99-0202 (W.D.La. Aug. 16, 1999) (order granting defendants' motions to dismiss). These incredible assertions also no doubt — in addition to Raz's "contumacious" behavior — led to the imposition of the pre-filing sanction in the first instance. See Raz v. Storey, No. 99-1850 (W.D.La. Mar. 13, 2001) (order dismissing Raz's case and imposing sanctions on Raz). We, therefore, find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Raz leave to file his complaint. See In re: Yoram Raz, 48 Fed.Appx. 104 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Raz contends that the district court's order did not state the reasons for its denial of his Motion for Leave to File Complaint and, therefore, remand is required. The district court, however, stated that the reason it denied Raz's motion was because it found his complaint "frivolous."
. Although the allegations regarding the discrete events at issue — an allegedly unlawful traffic stop, search, and arrest — are not in and of themselves incredible or delusional, this event is — according to Raz — simply another event in the same "massive, unrelenting, and life-destroying" conspiracy involving the FBI, state and local law enforcement, and Israel's counterintelligence organization, Shin-Bet. Consequently, Raz's ongoing and incredible tale about this conspiracy casts doubt on his specific allegations regarding the events at issue.
. Raz also alleges that the district judge was biased against Raz. However, his argument is based on previous adverse rulings of the district judge, which, without more, is insufficient to cast doubt on the judge's impartiality. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 550-51, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).