Wasim Aziz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Colorado, State Of; Denver, City Of; W. Danos; D. Gehm;j. Mohr, Defendants-appellees, 961 F.2d 219 (10th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore SEYMOUR, STEPHEN H. ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.*
ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
BALDOCK, District Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Wasim Aziz brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Colorado and Denver police officials a second time. The district court dismissed his previous complaint for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), and we affirmed. Aziz v. Danos, No. 90-Z-517, unpub. order (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 1990), aff'd, No. 90-1380, unpub. order (10th Cir. June 13, 1991). The district court dismissed this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as factually frivolous and as barred by res judicata. We affirm. This complaint offers less detail than the previous complaint and is barred by res judicata because the previous judgment was on the merits. See Aziz v. Danos, No. 90-Z-517, unpub. order at 2 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 1990) (dismissal with prejudice). As such, a § 1915(d) dismissal was appropriate. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108-09 (10th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
