Alexander v. Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. , 638 F. App'x 410 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-30083 Document: 00513422068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-30083 March 14, 2016
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DWAYNE G. ALEXANDER, individually and doing business as Worldwide
Detective Agency, Incorporated,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED;
MARK C. CARVER; LAWRENCE W. FERGUSON & ASSOCIATES;
LAWRENCE W. FERGUSON; NEW ORLEANS CITY; CARLOS O. AYESTAS,
JR.; TRAVELERS CASUALTY and SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA;
ANGELLA H. MYERS; JERRY R. ARMATIS; BRYAN THOMAS; MYERS
LAW GROUP, L.L.P.,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:14-CV-1087
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Dwayne G. Alexander has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) for an appeal from the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-30083 Document: 00513422068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-30083
civil action and denying his motion to remand the case to the state court. The
district court determined that non-diverse defendants had been improperly
joined because Alexander’s tort claims against them were prescribed, that the
tort claims against the remaining defendants were prescribed, and that
Alexander’s breach of contract claims against the remaining defendants were
barred as res judicata.
As Alexander has failed to address the district court’s reasoning, he has
not shown that the district court erred in determining that his appeal has not
been taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-200, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997). Because the appeal is frivolous, the request for leave to proceed
IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See id. at 202 n.24.
The appellees’ motions for sanctions are DENIED.
Alexander is WARNED, however, that future frivolous, repetitive, or
otherwise abusive filings will result in the imposition of progressively severe
sanctions, which may include monetary penalties and restrictions on his ability
to file pleadings and other documents in this court and in any court subject to
this court’s jurisdiction. Alexander should review any pending appeals and
actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous. His failure to do so will
result in the imposition of sanctions. This warning supplements and does not
displace the sanctions orders of the district court.
2