The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
04-30095
Summary Calendar
HUMBERTO HINOJOSA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OSSIE B. BROWN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
2:02-CV-1224
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Humberto Hinojosa appeals, pro se, denial of his motion to
alter or amend judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). On 4 November
2003, in awarding summary judgment to Ossie B. Brown, the district
court dismissed Hinojosa’s complaint with prejudice (finding his
claims barred by res judicata) and imposed sanctions against him
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Hinojosa filed a Rule
59(e) motion which was summarily denied. Within ten days of that
denial, Hinojosa sent a letter to the district court, which was
treated as an additional Rule 59(e) motion. On 21 January 2004,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the district court denied the second Rule 59(e) motion, stating the
claims were time barred when it issued its 4 November 2003 order
and were time barred still.
Hinojosa claims this denial alters the 4 November order
because it relies on his claims being time barred rather than
barred by res judicata. Hinojosa does not demonstrate how this
claimed alteration would entitle him to relief. In any event, the
21 January denial does not alter the earlier order. Rather, the
district court was attempting to clarify for Hinojosa that, because
his claims were time barred in 2003, they are time barred now. As
held by the district court in its November 2003 order, the claims
are also barred by res judicata.
AFFIRMED
2