“to the extent that the Browns assert that they have raised new claims, such claims clearly stem from the same decision of the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners that the Browns have already challenged in multiple state and federal cases.”
How later courts described this case
- “to the extent that the Browns assert that they have raised new claims, such claims clearly stem from the same decision of the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners that the Browns have already challenged in multiple state and federal cases.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 24-50461 Document: 25-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-50461
FILED
December 2, 2024
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Scott Phillip Lewis,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Williamson County, Texas,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:24-CV-118
______________________________
Before Jones, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Phillip Lewis appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against Defendant Williamson County as
duplicative. In a preceding state court case, Lewis was arrested on January
25, 2019, for a driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense. Lewis was detained,
arrested, and booked into Williamson County jail. Video footage of his arrest
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-50461 Document: 25-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2024
No. 24-50461
was shown on “LivePD,” a television show that follows police officers during
their patrols. Ultimately, all charges against Lewis were dropped by the State
of Texas for insufficient evidence on April 2022, over three years from the
date of arrest.
Arising out of the incident underlying the previous state court action,
Lewis now brings this lawsuit in federal court against Williamson County,
Texas alleging due process violations through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of
his arrest and the filming for “LivePD.” In his complaint, he alleges that he
suffered an anxiety attack due to the non-consensual public broadcast of his
arrest. He also alleges that Judge Barker, the county judge responsible for
adjudicating the criminal charges arising out of the January 2019 DWI arrest
in state court, improperly allowed his lawyer to withdraw in violation of the
United States Constitution.
This is not the first case Lewis has filed arising out of his previous state
court case. Lewis previously filed another lawsuit in the Western District of
Texas, Lewis v. Williamson Cnty., No. 1:21-cv-00074 (W.D. Tex. 2021), also
arising out of his DWI arrest and its filming for “LivePD.” In this previous
lawsuit, he also brought § 1983 claims against Williamson County, alleging
that his arrest and the filming violated his due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment. The allegations here concern the same DWI arrest
on January 25, 2019, and its filming for “LivePD.” Lewis’s first case filed in
the Western District of Texas was dismissed with prejudice in May 2024 on
a motion for summary judgment after he was afforded the opportunity to
amend his complaint twice and engage in the discovery process.
After filing the present lawsuit, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). The district court granted Lewis’s motion to proceed
IFP and summarily dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as duplicative and malicious. It explained that “[e]ach of the
2
Case: 24-50461 Document: 25-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2024
No. 24-50461
suits names the same defendant – and arises from Lewis’s arrest for driving
while intoxicated on January 25, 2019.” It went on to find that “Lewis has
had his full and fair day in court.” Lewis timely appeals.
Lewis does not challenge the district court’s granting of his motion to
proceed IFP, only the dismissal of his claim as duplicative and malicious.
Section 1915 governs proceedings IFP and provides that “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). IFP “status does not
entitle a plaintiff to avoid the ordinary rules of res judicata.” Pittman v. Moore,
980 F.2d 994, 994 (5th Cir. 1993). “A case may be dismissed as malicious if
it duplicates claims that the same plaintiff has raised in previous or pending
litigation.” Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 508 F. App’x 341, 343–44
(5th Cir. 2013) (unpublished). A case is duplicative if it involves “the same
series of events” and allegations of “many of the same facts as an earlier
suit.” Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). We review the
district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion.
See Shakouri v. Davis, 923 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2019).
Despite Lewis’s attempts to argue that the instant complaint is
different from his previous federal complaint because he adds allegations
regarding Judge Barker, the claims alleged in his complaint clearly stem from
the same incident, the DWI arrest, that were dismissed with prejudice on
summary judgment. Brown v. Texas Bd. of Nursing, 554 F. App’x 268, 269
(5th Cir. 2014) (“to the extent that the Browns assert that they have raised
new claims, such claims clearly stem from the same decision of the Texas
Board of Nurse Examiners that the Browns have already challenged in
multiple state and federal cases.”); MacWilliams v. Uncapher, No. 24-50129,
2024 WL 4471978, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (holding that “an action
raising the same factual allegations as a prior action is duplicative even if the
plaintiff names different defendants in the second action.”). The entire
3
Case: 24-50461 Document: 25-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/02/2024
No. 24-50461
factual basis of his complaint centers around his DWI arrest, its filming for
“LivePD,” and the criminal proceedings which arose from it. As such, we
hold Lewis has not shown that the district court abused its broad discretion
in dismissing his complaint as duplicative because this case is simply a
repetition of litigation that had previously been resolved against him. Bailey,
846 F.2d at 1021 (“[A] district court is ‘vested with especially broad
discretion’ in determining whether . . . a dismissal [under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)]
is warranted.”) (quoting Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir.
1986)).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
4