Court Opinion

ID: 9947089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 01:00:42.855243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.593278
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20343         Document: 45-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                 ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              March 1, 2024
                                  No. 23-20343                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                                   Clerk
                                ____________

Kent Vu Phan,

                                                                Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                        versus

The Aurora Medical Center of Colorado, for Doctor Colin
Buchanan; Doctor Allen Dorsett; Go Imaging MRI,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 4:22-CV-4036
                 ______________________________

Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
        Kent Vu Phan seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal
from the dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
the dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for

        _____________________
       *
           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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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.
Case: 23-20343       Document: 45-1        Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                 No. 23-20343

failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In addition to
dismissing Phan’s complaint, the district court imposed a pre-filing
injunction.
       In his pro se brief, Phan asserts that there was subject matter
jurisdiction because he raised claims under federal statutes.         He also
challenges the determination that he failed to state a claim.
       Although Phan’s complaint cited several federal statutes, “federal
courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their
jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely
devoid of merit,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ [or] ‘obviously frivolous.’” Hagans
v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal citations omitted). We do not
question Phan’s assertions of pain, but his claim that the insurance
companies he unsuccessfully sued in connection with his automobile
accident, as an act of retaliation, recruited a doctor to intentionally inflict
further injury on him during an operation is “wholly insubstantial and
frivolous,” Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, 565 F.2d 338, 343 (5th
Cir. 1977) (quotation marks omitted), as is Phan’s claim that the images of
his MRI were altered to make him look like a “bullfrog” as an affront to his
dignity. Likewise, his claim that his Oxycodone prescription was not refilled
because he has been placed on some sort of medical care “blacklist” as an act
of retaliation is “‘obviously frivolous.’” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 537.
       For much the same reasons, Phan’s complaint fails to state a plausible
claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The complaint provides
nothing more than conclusory statements and naked assertions, without
supporting factual allegations, of a retaliatory injury during surgery,
intentionally altered and offensive MRI images, and a prescription denied out
of retaliation on account of his placement on a blacklist. We do not accept

                                       2
 Case: 23-20343           Document: 45-1           Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                       No. 23-20343

such statements and assertions as true.                See Franklin v. Regions Bank,
                                           1
976 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Phan does not challenge the
district court’s determination that he should not be granted leave to amend
his complaint, he therefore waives that issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
        Phan challenges the pre-filing injunction, contending that he is not a
vexatious litigant and that the magistrate judge and the district court
discriminated against him. As the magistrate judge noted in making the
recommendation of a pre-filing injunction, Phan has a long history of filing
frivolous and duplicative lawsuits. See Phan v. Nat’l Jewish Health, No. 17-
cv-02353-GPG, 2018 WL 10425416, at *1-2, 5 (D. Colo. July 31, 2018)
(unpublished) (discussing Phan’s previous lawsuits). Phan cannot show
error in the district court’s consideration of his litigation history. See Baum
v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008).
        The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the
IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. Baugh v Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
        Phan is WARNED that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this
court or the district court will result in the imposition of sanctions, including
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Further, Phan

        _____________________
        1
          We do not consider Phan’s contention that the defendants discriminated against
him; Phan did not raise this allegation in his complaint, and this court will not consider new
theories of relief presented for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

                                               3
Case: 23-20343        Document: 45-1    Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                               No. 23-20343

is admonished to review any pending appeals and to withdraw any appeals
that are frivolous.

                                    4